Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cancer Outcomes

James Cartlidge: What steps he is taking to improve cancer outcomes.

Felicity Buchan: What steps he is taking to improve cancer outcomes.

Jo Gideon: What steps he is taking to improve cancer outcomes.

Angela Richardson: What steps he is taking to improve cancer outcomes.

Julian Sturdy: What steps he is taking to improve cancer outcomes.

Matthew Hancock: The NHS’s recovery approach is restoring urgent cancer referrals and treatment to at least pre-pandemic levels and building capacity for the future. Latest data from July suggests that urgent two-week-wait GP referrals are back to over 80% of pre-pandemic levels.

James Cartlidge: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that if we are to deliver better outcomes in cancer and all areas of care, our clinicians need the best possible infrastructure? Is not that why it is so important that the Prime Minister confirmed last week that we will deliver our manifesto pledge of 40 new hospitals? Does my right hon. Friend share my delight at seeing on that list a new rebuild for West Suffolk Hospital, to deliver even better outcomes for our constituents?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do. I share my hon. Friend and neighbour’s enthusiasm for the rebuild of the West Suffolk Hospital. For treating both patients with cancer and patients with all other conditions, the West Suffolk is a brilliant local hospital that is much loved in the community; however, its infrastructure is getting very old and it needs to be replaced. I am delighted, along with the Minister for primary care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), in whose  constituency the hospital is and will be rebuilt, that we are able to make the funding commitment and get this project going.

Felicity Buchan: I understand that we continue to requisition private hospitals. Given that there are patients who are nervous about attending hospitals, could those be used as covid-secure environments for cancer analysis and treatment?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely. The private hospitals of this country have played a very important role in responding to covid, and we have a contract with them to be able to continue to deliver much needed services, including cancer services. Because by their nature they rarely have the pressures of emergency attendance, we can ensure that they are part of the green part of the health service—that they are as free as is feasibly possible from coronavirus—and therefore safe to carry out all sorts of cancer treatments. They are an important part of the recovery plan.

Jo Gideon: In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, patients being treated for cancer at the Royal Stoke University Hospital were relocated to Nuffield Health in Newcastle-under-Lyme. That is an example of practical measures that hospital trusts across the UK have taken to limit the spread of coronavirus since the outbreak in March. As we approach the winter pressures on the NHS, will my right hon. Friend outline the precautions the Government are taking to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments and appointments are not put to the back of the queue and do not suffer from undue delays?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Royal Stoke Hospital has performed brilliantly during coronavirus, and I thank everybody who works there for the efforts that they have gone to. It is critical for everybody to understand that the best way to keep cancer services running is to suppress the disease; the more the disease is under control, the more we can both recover and continue with cancer treatments. I believe that it behoves us all to make the case that controlling this virus not only reduces the number of deaths directly from coronavirus, but enables us as much as possible to recover the treatment that we need to for cancer and other killer diseases.

Angela Richardson: Following an online meeting with the manufacturer, I am excited to visit the Royal Surrey County Hospital on Friday to see up close the robotics that are used in many soft tissue cancer operations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these clever robots, operated by talented surgeons, help to reduce the size of the incision site and therefore trauma, meaning a swift discharge and recovery for cancer patients, and that they are crucial to ongoing success in hospitals such as the Royal Surrey, which is a world leader in cancer treatments?

Matthew Hancock: I know the Royal Surrey and I enjoyed visiting it, albeit in the rain, in December last year with my hon. Friend. The Royal Surrey is carrying out some of the most cutting-edge treatments for cancer. We have put extra funding in—a more than £200 million fund—for the use of advanced technology for treating diseases such as cancer, and she will have seen that I announced  to the House yesterday that we are engaging with the best regulators around the world as we leave the European Union to ensure that we get cancer treatments to the frontline as fast as is safely possible.

Julian Sturdy: York Hospital, like a lot of others, experienced a fall in cancer referrals at the height of the pandemic as a result of residents having stopped going to consult their GP. There is real concern among health professionals in York about the knock-on consequences of that and the rise in the backlog of cancer referrals locally. What steps can the Secretary of State bring forward to assist NHS trusts such as York’s to ensure that the backlog does not lead to late diagnosis of cases, worsening cancer outcomes?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. As I mentioned in response to the first question, we now have referrals back up to over 80% of pre-pandemic levels, but we need to get that up further, because we all know that early diagnosis saves lives. I am also very glad to be able to report that in July, on the latest data, over 90% of patients saw a cancer specialist within two weeks of a referral from a GP, and 95% of patients receive treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat, so those referrals are leading to the action that is necessary. It is very important that the message goes out that the NHS is open, and anybody with a concern over cancer should come forward and they can get the treatment in a safe way that can help to save their lives.

Alex Norris: In June’s departmental questions, I pressed Ministers on the cancer backlog that has grown so greatly under covid, so it was alarming that despite those ministerial assurances, between August and September, with infection rates being much lower than they are today, the waiting list to see a specialist grew by 16%. Things will only get harder now that infection rates are rising and with the NHS facing winter pressures, so will the Secretary of State give us a categorical assurance that he has a cancer recovery plan, and that it will drive down the waiting lists each month for the rest of the year?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely. I think we agree right across the House on the importance of this agenda. The first and most important part of it is to bear down on the long waits, because the longer that people wait, the more dangerous cancer can become. That is happening, and we also have to make sure we bring the referrals forward, because we do not want to have fewer people referred for the diagnostics. At the same time, we are expanding the diagnostics that are available, both in hospitals and increasingly in community hubs, which are safer from a covid point of view and, for the long term, will mean that diagnostic centres for things such as cancer can perhaps be on a high street or in the places where people live, so that they do not necessarily have to go to a big, acute hospital to get the diagnostics part of the pathway done.

Non-covid Treatments

Dr Caroline Johnson: What steps he is taking to ensure that patients with illnesses other than covid-19 can access the treatments and procedures that their diagnosis requires.

Edward Argar: It is vital that non-covid treatments are restored as quickly and safely as possible. That is what the NHS is doing. It is working to have them restored, by October, to around 90% of last year’s levels.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Thankfully, children are relatively robust in the face of coronavirus. However, children’s services, like other hospital services, were understandably reduced during the pandemic. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that paediatric services are now 100% up and running and will not be affected by a future wave of the pandemic? What is he doing to support NHS trusts in dealing with the backlog of appointments delayed by the coronavirus?

Edward Argar: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her service to her constituents both as their MP and as a paediatric clinician. She is right to raise this important issue. Restoration guidance has already been published by NHS England and NHS Improvement, setting out a framework to fully restore services in this area, which I agree is vital. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further.

Mental Health Support in Schools

Abena Oppong-Asare: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on allocating additional resources for mental health support in schools.

Nadine Dorries: We are working closely with the Department for Education to support children and young people’s mental health, and we remain committed to implementing the proposals in the children and young people’s mental health Green Paper putting mental health support teams in schools and colleges, otherwise known as trailblazer schemes.

Abena Oppong-Asare: Schoolchildren have had their education interrupted. They have been separated from their friends and face continual threats to their daily lives. The Government knew schools were to return. Why did they not put adequate measures to provide mental health provision in schools for students and teachers?

Nadine Dorries: I am afraid I have to say that, actually, the opposite is the case. We have just completed the wellbeing for education return “train the trainer” scheme. The trainers have been trained by the Anna Freud Centre and are ready to go out into schools across the country. It was always the position that schools should be open and the best place for children to receive help and support, for exactly the reasons that the hon. Member described: separation from their routine and their friends, and school being a place of safety.
Train the trainer has now completed. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and I worked hard on that over the summer to ensure that the £8 million was there and the training was in place, ready to provide mental health and wellbeing support to children when they return to school. I am pleased to say that the last “train the trainer” scheme happened last week, and those involved are now ready to move into schools across the country.

Rosena Allin-Khan: It has been six months of uncertainty for our country’s children and their parents, with schooling cancelled, the exam results fiasco and now students trapped in uncertainty in their university accommodation. Despite the Education Secretary recognising that there was a serious impact on young people’s mental health, yet again it seems that the Government have no plan. Children and young people are being failed. When will the Minister finally address the pending mental health crisis in our schools, colleges and universities?

Nadine Dorries: I just do not recognise the picture that the hon. Lady has presented. We are investing at least £2.3 billion in mental health support and mental health provision. That investment translates to 345,000 children and young people who will be able to access mental health support via NHS-funded health services and school-based mental health support teams. Spending on children and young people’s mental health services is growing faster than the overall spend on mental health, which itself is growing faster than the overall NHS budget. Children and young people’s mental health is our priority, and we are showing that by investing in it. The picture that she paints is, I am afraid, completely not the case.

NHS Test and Trace

Helen Hayes: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the NHS Test and Trace service.

Mary Foy: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the NHS Test and Trace service.

Karl Turner: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the NHS Test and Trace service.

Rachael Maskell: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the NHS Test and Trace service.

Helen Whately: NHS Test and Trace launched in May. Four months later, more than 150,000 people who have tested positive for covid-19 have been contacted, and 450,000 of their contacts have been reached so that they can self-isolate. We have tested more than 7 million people at least once and many, such as care home workers, more than once. Rapid expansion brings with it challenges. Working with local authorities, we will continue to improve test and trace, as it is an important part of our armoury to defeat this virus.

Helen Hayes: As a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, I meet weekly with a working group drawn from across the care sector. Providers on that group report that they are still experiencing delays in receiving weekly test results, still have no routine access to weekly testing for domiciliary care workers or staff working in supported living environments and urgently need regular testing for family members to alleviate the terrible isolation of care home residents from their loved ones. When will the care sector have all the access to testing that it needs on a reliable basis to stop the second wave of coronavirus delivering the utter tragedy and devastation of the first to the care sector?

Helen Whately: I thank the hon. Member for her question and for the work that she does with the APPG, which I joined recently for a very valuable conversation. Supporting care homes through the pandemic and in the months ahead is absolutely our, and my, priority. One part of that is ensuring that they have the testing that they need. We are getting regular repeat testing to care homes. I acknowledge that the turnaround times have not been what we would have liked them to be, but those turnaround times are coming down and we are seeing a rapid improvement in performance.

Mary Foy: This week, the president of the Association of Directors of Public Health said that the funding is just not there for local authorities to effectively run local contact tracing. Where it has been done, at a cost to the local authority, evidence shows that local teams were more likely to be successful in contacting people compared with the national tiers 2 and 3. Can the Minister tell me why the Government keep insisting that the current track and trace system is working when public health professionals are telling them the opposite?

Helen Whately: I thank the hon. Member for her question. I am sure she will know that local authorities received £400 million to support them with local outbreak management. It is really important to have this coming together of the national system and the local system, where local authorities are indeed playing an important part, using their local knowledge to follow up with contact tracing, particularly for some of the contacts that are proving harder to reach.

Karl Turner: Schools in my constituency are having to close, disrupting children’s education and the work of their parents. Serco’s test and trace has been an unmitigated disaster. It is more than an extraordinary waste of public money; it is a public health crisis. To make matters worse, Ministers signed off on a wholly inappropriate Excel spreadsheet, blowing billions and leaving thousands of contacts untraced. When I asked the Secretary of State last week when he was going to take personal responsibility, he simply boasted that the system was working brilliantly. When does the Minister think her boss, the Secretary of State, will begin to take personal responsibility for this fiasco?

Helen Whately: There was quite a lot in that question. One thing I will say on schools is that enabling our children to continue to go to school is very much part of the whole strategy that we are using to tackle and suppress coronavirus, because education is so important. On the specific test and trace system to which the hon. Member refers, the Secretary of State spent an hour and a half in the Chamber yesterday answering colleagues’ questions about the performance of that system.

Rachael Maskell: In the light of the fact that infection levels in York have risen from 63.1 cases per 100,000 to 143.9 cases per 100,000 in just the past seven days, the local public health team is working with the university and local labs, and together they have put together a programme where they can test, process the testing and do contact tracing. This is a testing service that works for York, with test results the next day and tracers who understand local population flows. Will the Minister put the necessary resources in place to enable them to do their work and allow this to happen, because this is surely the game changer we need to beat this virus?

Helen Whately: Well, it is very good to hear of the set-up in York that the hon. Member describes, and what I can do is take away from here and follow up to ensure that there is joint working, which we know is a really effective way to bring together national resources with the local resources, expertise and knowledge that are so important in tackling this virus.

Philippa Whitford: With covid, speed is of the essence, but people are struggling to get a test due to limited capacity at the Lighthouse labs. New labs were due to open in Newport in August and in Loughborough last month, but both are delayed. As NHS labs are having to take on more testing, can the Minister say what additional funding will be provided specifically to increase NHS lab capacity?

Helen Whately: The context is the huge increase in the testing capacity of our system that we have already seen, going from in the order of 2,000 tests a day back in March to well over 200,000 tests a day now and building up to 500,000 tests by the end of this month. I recognise also that there is both the Lighthouse labs—what is known as pillar 2 testing system—and the important part that NHS testing facilities play in the pandemic. And of course the hon. Member will know that a huge amount of money has been and is going into the NHS to support its response to covid.

Philippa Whitford: Scotland’s public health-based tracing service has reached over 95% of contacts, yet four months on, the Serco system in England has still only reached 61%. As finding contacts and getting them to isolate is critical to reducing covid spread, should not tracing in England now be based more on local public health teams?

Helen Whately: It may be helpful to say that, since the NHS Test and Trace system started, it has contacted 78.5% of those who have tested positive, and then 77% of their contacts have been reached. There is an important part of the system where the national contact tracers are handing over to local authority contact tracers who are able to access the same system and are supported in contact tracing but, critically, are also using their local knowledge of the local area to increase the success rate. It is really important that people are reached wherever possible and advised to self-isolate.
May I also say how much I appreciate and thank all those who are doing the right thing by self-isolating, both those with symptoms and those who have been contacted by contact tracers?

Justin Madders: I am not going to ask about the current problems with test and trace, because it is clear from what we have heard already that the Government have no answers on that. Instead, I will ask about the so-called moonshot tests and Dido Harding’s comments that some people will have to pay for them. When the Prime Minister was given a chance in the Chamber, a fortnight ago, to deny that was on the table, he did not take it. We have real concerns about creating a two-tier system for tests where some people have to pay. It undermines a fundamental principle of the NHS and will do nothing to stop the spread of the virus. Will the Minister give us a definitive answer today? Are some people going to have to pay to access the moonshot tests, yes or no?

Helen Whately: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there could be a two-tier system. What we have in place is a universal system where everybody who has symptoms is able to access a test. As he well knows, where we know there are particular risks, such as for those in care home settings, there are also tests for those who do not have symptoms so that we can pick up outbreaks early. A huge amount of resource and investment is going into developing new technologies for testing—easier testing, quicker tests and tests that can be done at greater scale—because this is all part of building up our testing capacity, so we can suppress this horrid virus.

Education, Health and Care Plans

Chris Loder: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on ensuring that education, health and care plans are linked effectively with the healthcare system.

Helen Whately: Education, health and care plans identify the support needs of children and young people across those three areas. Local authorities and health bodies are required to jointly commission the services. The Government are currently undertaking a review of the special educational needs and disability system, and I am working on this with my ministerial counterpart in the Department for Education.

Chris Loder: I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers for their focus on Dorset County Hospital in the recent investment announcements, but in my West Dorset constituency, I have totally unacceptable waiting times of up to two years for EHCPs for children and their parents. That is totally unacceptable. They face the most difficult of situations and, I am afraid, are losing hope. Will the Minister help me in supporting these desperate children and parents who need to get their EHCPs done?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we need to see children and young people getting in place, as soon as possible, the support that can help them and about how there are waiting times for these plans. There are two things I can say in response. First, in the context of covid, NHS England has made it clear to NHS organisations that they must restart and restore services that support children and young people with EHC plans and in the assessments for those plans. Secondly, in the review of the SEND system, we are indeed looking at how we can address some of the problems in the system and achieve better integration across health, care and education.

Breast Screening

Kim Johnson: What steps he has taken to ensure the continuation of breast screening during the covid-19 outbreak.

Jo Churchill: Women at greatest risk of breast cancer continue to be prioritised for screening. The NHS has worked hard and has significantly reduced the backlog of delayed breast screening appointments from over 468,000 in June to under 52,000 in September. All services have now been restarted and, in Breast Cancer   Awareness Month, the message is clear: when you get a screening invite, please attend; if you are worried about anything, contact your general practitioner.

Kim Johnson: Breast screening appointments were paused during the height of the pandemic. Breast Cancer Now has estimated that 986,000 women across the UK missed their mammograms, and it estimates that, as a result, there could be 8,600 women living with undetected breast cancer. With this being Breast Cancer Awareness Month, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to address the gaps in specialist breast cancer nurses recently highlighted by Macmillan Cancer Support?

Jo Churchill: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Cancer nurse specialists are a particular interest of mine, and the long-term plan identifies that everybody deserves to have personalised care from a cancer nurse specialist. We did see the rate decline from 91% in 2018 to about 89% in 2019, and we are focused on making sure that everybody has a cancer nurse specialist. We promised it in the long-term plan and it is our ambition to deliver that personalised care to every woman. As I have outlined, the backlog of breast cancer screening has gone down but, again, I urge women who are called for screening to come forward. It is safe and, as with me, it could make all the difference.

Local Restrictions: Reducing Covid-19 Transmission

Bill Esterson: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of local restrictions on reducing the rate of transmission of covid-19.

Owen Thompson: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of lockdown restrictions on limiting the second wave of covid-19.

Judith Cummins: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of local restrictions on reducing the transmission of covid-19.

Matthew Hancock: I chair the Government’s local action gold committee, which considers the latest data and advice from experts, including epidemiologists and the chief medical officer, and the Joint Biosecurity Centre. Through this process, we consult local leaders and directors of public health. We have seen local actions in some parts of the country bring the case rate right down and we need to make sure that we are constantly vigilant to what needs to happen to suppress this virus.

Bill Esterson: Yesterday, the Health Secretary told me:
“we have been putting the extra money into…councils”—[Official Report, 5 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 637.]
What money is that? He announced £7 million, split between nine councils, as compared with £12 billion for Serco. That is not putting the extra money into councils, is it? So may I ask him to show respect for Members of this House and, more importantly, for our constituents, and answer the question: when is he going to stop relying on the outsourcing giants and to support local public health teams with the funds they need, because that is how he and this country are going to fix test, trace and isolate?

Matthew Hancock: We are, as the hon. Gentleman said in his question, putting money into local councils in areas where local action needs to be taken. We have an open dialogue with councils and local mayors about what needs to be done. But I urge him, on behalf of all of his constituents in Sefton, that it is better to support the whole effort to control this virus, not just part of it.

Owen Thompson: The Mayor of London has warned that the virus is now spreading widely again across London, although vital knowledge is being hampered by the problems with test and trace. Are the Government now looking at introducing wider restrictions across London? As a matter of interest for this House, will the Cabinet Secretary, as a part of that, commit to reintroducing a hybrid Parliament in such a situation?

Matthew Hancock: I discuss these matters with the Cabinet Secretary and other colleagues across government all the time, and I also speak regularly to the Mayor of London. We maintain vigilance over the transmission of the virus right across the country.

Judith Cummins: Can the Secretary of State answer a very simple question: what rate of infection means that a local authority needs to go into local restrictions and what rate means that it can leave them? Of course I accept that there will sometimes be very specific circumstances, such as workplace outbreaks, that would need to be considered, but surely it is not beyond his level of competence to do both, because my constituents deserve to know when they can see their families.

Matthew Hancock: Of course the hon. Member’s constituents and all those who are under local action restrictions yearn to see their families. We all yearn to be able to get back to the normal socialising that makes life worth living, but I am afraid that the answer to her question is in the question: because of specific local circumstances, such as outbreaks in a workplace or a halls of residence, it is not possible to put a specific number on the point at which a judgment is made to put in place local restrictions, which we do in consultation with the council, or to take an area out of them.

Student Lockdown: Access to Care

Lilian Greenwood: What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that university students with (a) cystic fibrosis and (b) other long-term health conditions who are required to self-isolate on campus as a result of the covid-19 outbreak have access to essential (i) medication, (ii) dietary provision and (iii) medical care.

Helen Whately: Universities have a duty of care to support students who are required to self-isolate. The Department for Education is working with universities to make sure that where an outbreak occurs, support is in place. That includes ensuring that students with cystic fibrosis and other long-term health conditions who are self-isolating have access to the food, medicine and medical care they may need.

Lilian Greenwood: Self-isolating students throughout the country, and their understandably worried parents, are reporting problems with accessing food, drinks, exercise and other support. That is completely unacceptable for any student, but for those with cystic fibrosis, who  often need high calorie requirements to stay well, access to regular food supplies is absolutely essential for their health. What is the Minister doing to ensure that students with CF who are required to self-isolate at university and have previously shielded are able to access priority supermarket delivery slots? Many will have relied on their parents’ accounts when they were at home. What other action is she taking, in partnership with universities and the Department for Education, to ensure that every student with CF who finds themselves in lockdown is supported on their healthcare needs?

Helen Whately: The hon. Lady asks a really important question. Clearly, it is a difficult time for students starting university now, but particularly for those with long-term health conditions such as cystic fibrosis. Overall, as she knows, the context is that we are prioritising education. We do not want students to put their life on hold, but we do want them to be supported by their university, particularly if it is harder for them to self-isolate because of health conditions. I am in regular contact with the Minister for Universities and will take up with her the specific questions about support for students with cystic fibrosis and access to supermarket deliveries. If the hon. Lady would like to raise any specific case with me, she should let me know and I will take that up with the Minister for Universities to address the specific issues.

Covid-19 Laboratory Testing Capacity

Gordon Henderson: What steps his Department is taking to increase covid-19 laboratory testing capacity.

Matthew Hancock: As part of the drive towards the capacity target of 500,000 tests a day by the end of October, we have announced additional Lighthouse labs as part of the national lab network, and work is ongoing to expand the UK’s lab capacity inside the NHS.

Gordon Henderson: The Lighthouse labs do not appear to be delivering sufficient test results. Schools and care homes in my constituency are still having to wait an unacceptably long time for covid-19 test results, and the delays are making it difficult for them to operate properly. What is my right hon. Friend doing to make better use of the many life science companies in Kent, including those at Discovery Park in Sandwich and at the Kent Science Park in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey? Those companies have laboratories in which some of the tests taken in Kent could be analysed.

Matthew Hancock: We are increasingly contracting with labs like the ones my hon. Friend mentions—as well as the Lighthouse labs, which have huge capacity—to make sure that we can both increase capacity and reduce the turnaround time. I am glad to say that the latest figures for the past week showed that the turnaround time is coming down, which is important in Kent and right throughout the country.

Mental Health Service Provision

Ian Lavery: What steps he is taking to equalise the provision of resources allocated to mental health services for (a) children and (b) young adults.

Nadine Dorries: As I said in an answer to the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), we are committed to spending on children and young people’s mental health services, which is growing faster than the overall spend on mental health, and the overall spending itself is growing faster than the NHS budget.

Ian Lavery: See, Hear, Respond, a new service managed by Barnardo’s in response to covid-19, to provide early intervention support for families and children in crisis, has received more than 11,000 referrals since June. The majority of children and young people referred need support for their mental health and wellbeing. What early intervention measures have been introduced? Are they enough? Does the Minister agree that early intervention measures are key to tackling the increase in children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing needs?

Nadine Dorries: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. The Government’s £8 million Wellbeing for Education Return programme, which is to support staff to respond to the emotional, mental health and wellbeing pressures that some children have experienced during the pandemic, is in place. As I have said, the last train the trainer session took place last week and those trainers are ready to go into primary schools to assist both teachers and parents to recognise when children display early signs of emotional distress or mental health issues as a result of the pandemic. I have been working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), to ensure that this programme is in place to address exactly the needs that he has highlighted.

Long Covid

Alistair Carmichael: What steps he is taking to support people with long covid.

Jo Churchill: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome yesterday’s announcement that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network will work with the Royal College of General Practitioners to develop guidelines to support patients and practitioners in the treatment of and recovery from the disease. This follows on from the NHS launch in July of the Your COVID Recovery service, which provides personalised support for individuals. In addition, we are funding research into covid-19, including a study of 10,000 patients who were admitted to hospital with covid, building our understanding of the long-term effects and helping direct those improved treatments that are needed.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that helpful and comprehensive answer. If she has not already read it, may I commend to her the most recent edition of The Doctor, the British Medical Association magazine, which outlines several compelling case studies of GPs who are still suffering, some up to six months, after they first contracted covid? There is a growing body of evidence that a number of people continue to suffer with this months after it has been contracted, in a quite  debilitating way. Will she build on the work that she is already doing and make the case to the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions in particular to ensure that all those who suffer from long covid get the support that is necessary for them?

Jo Churchill: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement and I will read the document that he mentions with interest. It is a new disease on which we are still gathering evidence and data, so that we know how we can best support the individual in their recovery and, arguably, in their new covid-tinged life. I assure him that that is precisely what I shall be doing—looking at the evidence base and making sure we work with the colleges and general practitioners to ensure that we get the right answers.

Adult Care: Covid-19

Sarah Dines: What steps his Department is taking to support the adult care sector during the covid-19 outbreak.

Fiona Bruce: What steps his Department is taking to support the adult care sector during the covid-19 outbreak.

Scott Mann: What steps his Department is taking to support the adult care sector during the covid-19 outbreak.

Danny Kruger: What steps his Department is taking to support the adult care sector during the covid-19 outbreak.

Helen Whately: We have sweated blood and tears to support the sector through this pandemic. Last month, we launched the adult social care winter plan, with regular testing for care home staff and residents, free personal protective equipment and mandatory infection prevention and control measures for care providers, supported by £546 million of Government funding. I am enormously grateful to all those on the frontline in social care. I recognise the challenges that they have faced and how many feel daunted by the winter ahead. I say to care workers: “I cannot thank you enough for what you do and I am with you every step of the way.”

Sarah Dines: I have been contacted by Ann Penrose, who is 91, in good health and in a care home in Ashbourne, Derbyshire Dales. She asked her family to contact Boris, but sadly she got me. Does the Minister agree that the time has come to look very carefully at what is happening in care homes to review the existing measures, routines and guidelines, bearing in mind that we are testing so much now? We need to have a bit more humanity. We are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. These people need their families, yes, in a safe environment, but they do need to have access to families and, at times, to their pets.

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of visiting both to the individuals living in care homes, and to their family and friends. Achieving the balance between protecting care home residents from the risk that covid might be brought into the care home, where it is so hard to control, and giving them access to visitors, has been one of the hardest areas to get right over the past few months.  That is why in the summer we issued guidance on safe visiting and gave more freedom on the decisions about visiting to local authorities, with directors of public health working with care homes. I want us to continue to support and enable safe visiting for care homes.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have to get through this grouped set of questions, and it is going to take us well into topicals time; the Minister really does need to speed up on the answers.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Minister for the social care winter plan announced two weeks ago. Can she tell me when this half a billion pound infection control fund will be released to councils covering constituencies such as mine in Congleton, in order to help protect residents and staff over the winter?

Helen Whately: The infection control fund is being distributed in two equal instalments, the first of which has already been paid to local authorities. My hon. Friend’s local authority, Cheshire East Council, will be receiving £4.7 million in total, so it should already have received £2.35 million to go towards the extra costs for care providers and others in infection prevention and control.

Scott Mann: As always, I commend the Department and the Secretary of State on their work during the pandemic. Although not every part of the response has been perfect—and we never expected that it would be—I am convinced that the Department has done its utmost to protect the public. I do have some concerns, however, about the transmission between care homes. What measures has the Department taken to prevent cross-contamination of covid between care homes, particularly from staff who work in multiple locations?

Helen Whately: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, but most of the credit should go to those working in social care, who have been looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our society in such difficult circumstances. He is right that it is really important that we ensure that there is no transmission between one care home and another, which is why we are requiring care homes to make sure that their staff work in only one setting and are providing additional funding to enable them to do this.

Danny Kruger: Care homes are rightly the focus of our attention at the current time, but I know that the Minister is reviewing the future of social care. Does she agree that our focus in that regard should be on more community-based services, not solely on residential provision? Will she also set my mind at ease by ruling out the creation of a new national care service run from Whitehall?

Helen Whately: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent report on levelling up our communities? As he said, care homes have indeed been the focus of our social care response to the pandemic, but I would not want anyone to think that that was the limit of our support for social care during the pandemic; the winter plan also includes support for domiciliary care, supported living and others. I agree with him that as we look to the future, we should support the aspiration that most people have to live independently, with their own front door, well into their old age. There are no plans to create a national care service run from Whitehall.

Liz Kendall: Families with loved ones in care homes are desperate to start visiting again, but are banned from doing so in swathes of the country with extra restrictions. The Government’s own carers advisory group says that visits are essential for residents’ health, and that, to make them safe, relatives should be treated like key workers—with regular testing. Will the Minister now please put that testing in place and lift the blanket ban on care home visits in lockdown areas, so that we can help to bring all families back together again?

Helen Whately: The hon. Member makes an important point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) a moment ago, about the importance of visiting for those in care homes, and for their relatives and loved ones. We are striking the difficult balance between protecting those in care homes and ensuring that they have visits wherever possible, but these visits must be done safely. I have heard from the sector about the aspiration for some family members to be treated as care workers—for instance, if they visit the care home regularly. As we expand testing, I very much intend that we should test some visitors—and am making the case for doing so—but it is all part of how we expand and use our testing resources.

Topical Questions

Tonia Antoniazzi: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Matthew Hancock: On Friday we confirmed the 40 hospitals we will build by 2030 as part of a package worth £3.7 billion, with a further eight new schemes also invited to bid, all to ensure that we protect the NHS long into the future.

Tonia Antoniazzi: All I want from the Secretary of State today is a simple yes or no answer. It has come to light that the Northern Ireland authorities have taken unprecedented action and committed to pay for private prescriptions for medical cannabis for severely ill children. Will he do the right thing and follow the example set in Northern Ireland in supporting other children with intractable epilepsy by paying for their private prescriptions—yes or no?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady has long been a campaigner on this subject. We have made significant progress in terms of expanding access where it is clinically safe to do so. On this, as on so many things, I will make sure that I constantly follow the clinical evidence.

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend knows that for every person who tragically dies from coronavirus, at least one other person has long-term symptoms lasting more than three months, meaning that they have breathlessness and chronic fatigue and often cannot go back to work normally. In his letter to me of 14 September, he said that clinics were going to be set up so that they could get mental health support, face-to-face counselling and rehabilitation. Have those clinics been commissioned, and when will those long covid sufferers be able to access them throughout the country?

Matthew Hancock: My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I know very well the impact of long covid; it is something that I understand deeply. We are in the process of setting up those clinics and there will be further information on this very shortly.

Jon Ashworth: Given that the Office for National Statistics has said today that deaths have increased three weeks in a row, and given the rising prevalence of the virus, can the Secretary of State understand the upset and the anger over the Excel spreadsheet blunder? Can he tell us today what he could not tell us yesterday: how many of the 48,000 contacts—not the index cases, the contacts—have been traced and how many are now isolating?

Matthew Hancock: We have obviously been continuing to contact both the index cases and the contacts. The total number of contacts depends on how many contacts each index case has. That information will of course be made available in the normal way when it has been completed. However, we cannot know in advance how many contacts there are because the interviews with the index cases have to be done first.

Jon Ashworth: So essentially thousands of people who have been exposed to the virus could be wandering around not knowing they have been exposed and infecting people, and the Secretary of State cannot even tell us if they have been traced.
Let me move on to something else. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said about a vaccine yesterday in light of the news that the Government are aiming to vaccinate about 30 million people—just under 50% of the population. There has been an expectation that the whole of the population would be vaccinated, not least because he said at the Downing Street press conference that he “would hope, given the scale of the crisis, we would have the vaccine and everyone would be given the vaccine.” Those are his words. We accept the clinical guidance. However, can he tell us how long it will take, for the 50% of people who will not be vaccinated, for life to return to normal for them?

Matthew Hancock: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, decisions on the distribution of any vaccine have not been taken. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is the body that advises the Government on the appropriate clinical prioritisation of vaccines. It has published an interim guide, which he well knows about and we have discussed. That sets out the order of priority as an interim measure, but we await the data from the clinical trials of the vaccine before we will come to a clinically validated full roll-out plan. We are putting in place the logistical plans now, but on the decisions as to the clinical order of priority, we will take the evidence from the Joint Committee.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just say to those on both Front Benches that these are meant to be short and punchy topical questions, not full debates?

Jo Gideon: With many GPs surgeries adapting to coronavirus guidelines by holding surgeries outside, often in car parks, one of my constituents was left feeling embarrassed and upset by having to discuss a sensitive and personal  health issue within earshot of other patients waiting in line. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in times when alternative methods are replacing the usual privacy of face-to-face appointments behind closed doors, GPs surgeries must be sensitive to the whereabouts and comfort of their patients to ensure that others do not have the same experience as my constituent?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks well for her constituent. I am very sorry that her constituent had that experience, and of course GPs should be sensitive, as the large majority are.

Colleen Fletcher: The implications of coronavirus include rising levels of loneliness, which can impact on mental health and physical wellbeing while increasing pressure on the NHS. Last Friday, I visited Henley Green community centre in my constituency of Coventry North East and saw the work it is doing with health services to combat loneliness and deliver positive health and wellbeing outcomes. What resources can the Government provide to accelerate the spread of such social prescribing schemes so that community groups can deliver tailored local support to tackle this growing problem?

Matthew Hancock: I pay tribute to the group that the hon. Lady mentions. I have put a huge amount of effort into supporting social prescribing, including with funding, and I encourage her CCG to engage with such bodies to make sure that we can get funding to support them on the frontline.

Dr Caroline Johnson: At the start of this pandemic, in the first lockdown, abortion services were relaxed to allow women to enable them to access the service from home, but I am particularly worried about the effect that has had on those women who are particularly vulnerable, subject to abuse or in coercive relationships. Now that we know that the risk to women of childbearing age from attending a face-to-face appointment is extremely low, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the ongoing need to continue in this way?

Matthew Hancock: The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) has committed to consult on the subject to make sure we get to the right outcome.

Kate Osamor: This Government have repeatedly refused to meet the group representing covid-19 bereaved families. I met the group last week, and they confirmed that they are not in litigation with the Government and never have been. They simply want to put across the concerns of thousands of people who have lost loved ones to coronavirus, so will the Minister now commit to meeting the group and hearing their concerns at first hand?

Matthew Hancock: Of course I have met and continue to meet the families of those bereaved through coronavirus. With this particular group, I am afraid that when I last looked into it, they were in legal action—in pre-action protocol—with the Government, so I am advised that I should not therefore meet them.

Simon Clarke: It is important that communities, such as mine in Middlesbrough, can see a way out of the tighter local restrictions that have now been imposed. Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s earlier, very reasonable answer to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) about the impossibility of setting hard metrics for the release from lockdown, can he set out what would constitute a path out? Does it include, for example, a sustained fall in transmission rates?

Matthew Hancock: The level of cases matters, but so too does the direction of travel, and when the number of cases is falling—especially if it is falling rapidly—that is the sort of indicator that we will look at. One example is the action we took in Leicester a few months ago now, where we removed some of the most restrictive measures when the numbers were coming down sharply.

Ian Lavery: Please, please, Secretary of State, my constituents need extra support. Despite the outstanding efforts of the staff at Northumberland County Council, covid-19 is running rife through our towns and villages. Since stricter local lockdown measures were introduced, we have seen a huge increase in transmission levels. Parts of Ashington, Bedlington, Morpeth and Newbiggin have seen rates  of almost 500 per 100,000. Secretary of State, please  help us.

Matthew Hancock: I am very worried about the rates of transmission in the north-east, as I am about parts of the north-west of England. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and colleagues from across the regions affected to take the action necessary to suppress this virus and to support the economy, education and the NHS right across this land.

Suzanne Webb: I have first-hand experience of how effective the app has been, as it has kept my father covid-free before he goes into hospital tomorrow. Could my right hon. Friend update the House on the success of the app and advise me of what more Members can do to ensure that the covid-19 app continues to keep us all safe, including my father?

Matthew Hancock: The covid-19 app has now been successfully downloaded by around 15 million people, including my hon. Friend’s father. Every extra person who downloads it helps to keep themselves safe and keep others safe. I urge everybody in this House to download it—I hope you have, Mr Speaker. It is one of the tools in the armoury, and everybody can play their part in keeping this virus under control by downloading the app.

Jamie Stone: As you can imagine, Mr Speaker, I was astounded to be told that people living in Devon were being advised to go to Inverness for a covid test. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that a truly collaborative effort is being made by Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government to beat this virus?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely. The testing facilities are one example of that. Testing facilities across the UK work very closely with the Scottish NHS, to ensure that  people can get a test as close to them as possible. I think we have reduced the problem of people being sent to Inverness, but we continue to work to increase the capacity in Inverness and right across the country.

Andrew Percy: Partly in response to large queues and hours-long waits for tests in Canada, Health Canada has followed the US Food and Drug Administration in approving rapid testing, such as the ID NOW test, which can give a result in 15 minutes. Can the Secretary of State update us on where we are with the roll-out of rapid testing?

Matthew Hancock: We are making good progress in validating the tests and in doing what needs to be done to be able to use them effectively. I have seen some of these reports from around the world, and I talk regularly to my opposite numbers about how we can get this sort of next-generation testing going.

Jessica Morden: With Spina Bifida Awareness Week coming up, can the Secretary of State say when the Government will respond to the consultation on putting folic acid into flour? It is a move that could help to reduce the number of babies born with defects of the spine, and it is important to hear when that might happen.

Matthew Hancock: I am a strong supporter of the work we have done to look at that approach. The hon. Lady is right to raise it, and I will write to her with a timetable for that response.

Mary Robinson: Positive outcomes are more likely when cancer is detected early through breast screening, and evidence suggests that take-up of screening is generally higher when mobile units are used, yet women in Heald Green have missed out on local screening and been directed out of Cheadle to Macclesfield. It is the second time that their three-yearly checks have been disrupted, potentially affecting uptake and risking cancers going undetected. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss ways to address the situation in Stockport and give women in my constituency access to the local mobile screening units they need?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course I would. I would underline some news announced by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), which is that the breast screening backlog from the first peak,  which was 450,000, is now down to just over 50,000. I pay tribute to the NHS and all those involved in screening who have done so much work to bring that backlog down, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this subject.

Patrick Grady: The pharmaceutical industry has highlighted supply difficulties due to covid-19 as a challenge to recreating stockpiles before the end of the transition period in December. How will the Secretary of State ensure that there are no drug shortages, particularly of medicines such as insulin, which is not produced in the UK?

Matthew Hancock: A huge amount of work is under way to ensure that we are fully prepared for all eventualities this winter. It is an important piece of work across the Department.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to Northumberland hospital investment, with the Northgate Hospital investment announced last week. Does he agree that rural hospitals such as Berwick Infirmary—one of the most rural English hospitals—are places to develop the technology to enable us to reach many more patients, without them having to travel long distances to get to hospital?

Matthew Hancock: We have ended where we started this questions session: with my delight at a new hospital that has been funded and announced by the Prime Minister on Friday—Newgate in Northumberland. That is a very important development. My right hon. Friend makes a wider point about the importance of community hospitals, which are local to where people live. With modern advances in technology, we can deliver more services closer to people’s homes and in people’s homes, and then in community hospitals, while of course needing to build those superb hubs of science and care that our great hospitals are.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Areas with Additional Public Health Restrictions: Economic Support

Anneliese Dodds: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on economic support available to individuals and businesses in areas of the country subject to additional public health restrictions.

Steve Barclay: The decision to extend tighter lockdown measures to Liverpool city region, Warrington, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough was based on the latest health evidence, including advice from the chief medical officer and local public health authorities. The resurgence of the virus has demanded further action to minimise harm to health and wellbeing, while preserving the ability of people to work and businesses to trade in the areas affected. That is why, throughout this crisis, we have sought to strike a balance between minimising the burden faced by businesses and protecting public health. To that end, we have provided one of the most generous and comprehensive packages of support for people, businesses and public services, totalling £190 billion by July.
As the path of the virus and the threat to the economy have become clearer, we have taken further decisive action. Last month, the Chancellor announced the winter economic plan—a package of targeted measures to protect jobs and businesses, including the job support scheme to support the wages of employees in viable jobs and an extension of the self-employed income support scheme to the end of April 2021. We are also continuing the temporary reduction in VAT for hospitality until the end of March 2021 and the Government-backed loan schemes until the end of November this year. We are also providing an additional £100 million in surge funding to support the hardest-hit areas in containing covid-19. That is on top of the £300 million provided through the test and trace programme. We are offering grants to businesses that have been required to shut because of the new measures, worth up to £1,500 for each three weeks of closure.
Throughout this pandemic, we have prioritised a flexible and adaptable approach to economic support. We will continue in that spirit, and we stand ready to evolve our policies as required.

Anneliese Dodds: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your courteousness and patience, as always.
Seventeen million people—one in four of us—are living under additional covid-19 restrictions. That was not inevitable: experts agree that it is linked to the continuing failure to deliver a functioning test, trace and isolate system. That failure has profound economic consequences and puts businesses and jobs at risk. Today, nearly 1 million people are still on furlough in the areas of the country that are subject to local restrictions or are on the watch list.
Support for local areas has only ever come after restrictions have been imposed—for example, a month later in Leicester’s case. There are leaked suggestions that the Treasury will be involved in decision making around restrictions, potentially to prevent such delays.  When will the Government finally be in a position to deliver support hand in hand with the imposition of restrictions, not trailing them?
The response has been inconsistent: £3 million for Leicester, £7 million for Liverpool city region, an undefined funding package for the north-east of England and nothing for Greater Manchester or the west midlands. What criteria determine the allocation of support to areas under local restrictions? Will they be published? If not, why not? Do they truly reflect the needs of areas subject to restrictions? I note that the Chief Secretary did not talk at any point in his statement about support for areas with economic needs, not health needs. He referred to the local restrictions support grant, but can he confirm that no area currently qualifies for that grant because of current restrictions?
The millions of people living under local restrictions deserve better. When will the Government grasp the scale of the challenge and act to recover jobs, retrain workers and rebuild businesses?

Steve Barclay: The shadow Chancellor almost implies that the resurgence of the virus is unique to the United Kingdom, yet anyone who looks across the continent will see that many other countries, as we come out of the summer period, are seeing exactly the same trend and are dealing with it in in many of the same ways as we are in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady says that support has not been offered to those suffering from economic harm, but that ignores, for example, the announcement that I made in the Chamber some weeks ago about the £1,500 of support for businesses for every three weeks of closure as the result of a local lockdown—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should let me answer, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position.
The hon. Lady also ignores the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has extended many of the measures that we introduced in our initial response, including the package of loans, the tax deferrals and pay as you grow. Those are universal offers to support businesses, irrespective of whether they are in areas of acute lockdown or otherwise.
As I said at the start, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we will keep listening, and we will keep striving to be creative in response to the challenges that we face. Where we can, he will act. That shows our willingness to adapt. The package of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor brought to the Chamber just a few days ago, with the winter plan, illustrates that willingness to listen, to evolve and to respond to the virus, as the economic needs of the country dictate.

Mel Stride: Local restrictions are inevitably impairing many thousands of businesses in those areas, but some businesses are not just being impaired: because of the regulations, they are simply unable to trade. I am thinking about many companies in the hospitality sector—events companies, hotels, nightclubs and many more. Would my right hon. Friend recognise that and come forward with a specific set of support packages for those businesses, which the regulations basically stop dead in their tracks? In that way, the many thousands of jobs in those businesses, which are otherwise entirely viable, can be saved.

Steve Barclay: The Chair of the Treasury Committee raises an extremely pertinent point, which I know my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard loud and clear. That is why we have seen repeatedly in the measures that the Chancellor has brought forward a targeting—particularly, as the Chair of the Select Committee says, in areas such as the hospitality sector, which have been acutely hit—with a package of measures, such as the cut in VAT and the package over the summer. For specific areas such as the independent cinema sector, there has been the £30 million of funding for the British Film Institute. That is an individual measure, but it does not address the much wider part of the cinema sector and the major chains. It is about looking at targeted measures of support in response to the issue that the Select Committee Chair raises.

Alison Thewliss: Local lockdown is a reality, and there is a potential for a national lockdown of some kind as we go into the months ahead. Livelihoods have been disrupted once again and the viability of businesses is being threatened by these restrictions, which are necessary to protect public health.
Kate Nicholls of UKHospitality told the Treasury Committee this morning that sector-specific restrictions require sector-specific support. What sector-specific support is the Minister going to bring forward for sectors such as hospitality, events, tourism, funfairs, culture and the arts? The Chancellor earlier seemed to suggest that people should just go and get another job, which is deeply offensive to many in those sectors.
Failing to support and sustain businesses right now risks putting those businesses over the edge so that they will not be there for a recovery in the future. The Minister must speak to the Chancellor today, extend the furlough in the self-employment support scheme and fill the gaps for those who have not had a single penny from the Government since lockdown began. People are depending on this UK Government, with the economic levers that they have. The Government are failing in their duty to protect those jobs and livelihoods right now. They are letting millions of people down and accepting the harm of mass unemployment that will follow.
The Scottish Government are limited in how much they can spend and in how much they can borrow, which is very limited. They do not even have the certainty of a UK Budget to know how much they will receive in the months ahead. If Scotland needs to lock down on public health grounds, how much money will come in support?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady says that she seeks targeted measures, but then seems to ignore the £1.57 billion that the Chancellor announced for the arts—exactly the sort of targeted package that she was referring to. She then says that that is not enough, but it is unclear how long the SNP would want to extend schemes such as the furlough, how targeted that would be on specific sectors and what that would mean for the supply chains for those sectors. We think that it is right to be honest with the British public and ensure that we target support beyond the eight months of the furlough, in the  way that the Chancellor set out, with the job support scheme and the extension of the self-employed income support scheme.
On certainty of funding for the Scottish Government, I have had regular discussions with the Scottish Finance Secretary. I would have welcomed the hon. Lady’s acknowledgement that we had done something unprecedented in guaranteeing the Barnett consequentials in order—as the Scottish Government had requested, and responding to their wishes—to give them confidence in the funding pipeline. That had not been done before. The Government did it to give the Scottish Government confidence on the Barnett consequentials. An acknowledgement by the hon. Lady of that point would have been welcome.

Chris Grayling: Although I am clear that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Treasury have done a Herculaen job in bringing forward schemes to support jobs in the economy, like the Chair of the Treasury Committee, I remain concerned about those sectors that are unable to operate because of Government restrictions. I cite particularly the events industry and our aviation sector—I think especially of the regional airports, which will be affected by regional restrictions. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look with colleagues across Government at ways in which we can get those sectors at least partially working again, with proper social distancing rules? I cannot believe that it is not possible to do that. If it is possible to go to a supermarket, surely it is possible to have airport testing, and socially distanced trade shows and similar to get some of those sectors moving again.

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend is right that it is important, as we live with the virus and accept that it will be with us for longer, that we constantly learn from that and see what lessons there can be, not just in terms of, for example, regional air travel, but how that reads across into other matters such as non-pharmaceutical interventions. My right hon. Friend’s point is exactly why the Chancellor said yesterday that he will keep listening and striving to be creative. His track record has demonstrated that. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend as we learn those lessons.

Cat Smith: Many businesses may not have to close because of local restrictions, but they have seen a drop in footfall and a decline in their business. I am thinking of many small family-run businesses that have approached me in Lancaster in Fleetwood. Will the Chief Secretary outline what support will be available for those businesses and what they can expect when local restrictions are put in place?

Steve Barclay: For exactly that reason, the Chancellor set out the package of measures in the winter plan. We recognise that there is a balance, and we have sought to strike one that enables many of those businesses still to trade—so restrictions have not led to closure of certain businesses, as full lockdown did. However, we acknowledge that there has been an impact, particularly on cash flow. That is why the Chancellor set out the furlough bonus and the job support scheme and extended what is, by international comparisons, one of the most generous self-employed income support schemes. We recognise that there is a balance between the health measures that we are taking and the hon. Lady’s legitimate concern about the impact on businesses, particularly their cash flow.

Jane Stevenson: There is no crystal ball that will tell us how bad the virus will be in various areas. I thank the Chief Secretary for his assurance that the Government will be flexible and continue to offer targeted support in areas of high coronavirus rates. Will he also assure my constituents in Wolverhampton North East and people in the Black Country that the Government’s levelling up agenda will not be forgotten in the coming months?

Steve Barclay: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance about levelling up. It is at the core of the Government’s mission. It is a key priority of the Prime Minister and consequentially of all Ministers. We are actively working in the Treasury to accelerate under Project Speed our infrastructure investment to ensure that it is better targeted in terms of place as well as scheme.

Rupa Huq: London, which is now on a watch list, is not only our financial centre but our cultural capital. [Interruption.] I believe so. It is the nation’s beating heart. Despite the £1.57 billion arts rescue package, freelancers and the self-employed in the sector in my constituency have not seen a penny since March. Established venues such as The Questors in Ealing face a record loss this year because the panto is off—oh yes it is! Will the Chief Secretary not be a villain and sort this out now?

Steve Barclay: I shall resist pursuing the panto theme, although I am not sure too many villains have allocated £1.57 billion to the industry in addition to the other package of support that the Chancellor has announced. The hon. Lady speaks of a real concern, which we are acutely aware of. The House has debated at length the issue of that subset of the self-employed who were beyond the date of the initial package and I do not think we need to rehearse that argument, but I recognise that it is an issue of ongoing concern. By international standards, the self-employed income support package that we have put in place is extremely generous, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor extended it further in the winter plan.

Sara Britcliffe: Hyndburn and Haslingden have been in local restrictions since 31 July, and were only removed for a short period beforehand. My local authorities are playing a huge part in supporting my community, to support the most vulnerable people and keep vital services running. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Government are taking to support them and what further support is being considered if further restrictions are imposed?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is quite right to single out the huge amount of work being done by local authorities up and down the country to assist us in our response to the pandemic, and I am sure that I join many hon. Members in paying tribute to that work. She will be aware that my right hon Friend the Chancellor announced £3.7 billion of grant support for councils, an extra £1.1 billion of support for social care providers, and on top of that £300 million as part of our enhanced track and trace. In addition, £100 million was announced for the surge, in our response to local authorities. It is an important point; we work very closely with local authorities as part of our response.

Christine Jardine: We now have local lockdowns on top of the threat of further national restrictions, warnings daily from various sectors, and the threat of mass unemployment. Many companies are under threat because they are being responsible and following restrictions, so, bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has said about flexibility, will the Government now accept that an extension to furlough into June 2021, which experts say could protect more than 1 million jobs, is absolutely vital to those companies?

Steve Barclay: I am very proud that, as a result of our ability to act as one UK, the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom have enabled us to protect almost a million jobs in Scotland, supporting nearly half a million through the furlough scheme, and 65,000 businesses in Scotland have benefited from the UK Government loan scheme. The ability of the Treasury and the Government to act and support businesses and jobs in Scotland has been enhanced by our ability to act as one United Kingdom.
On what further measures are taken, I do not agree with the hon. Lady that the solution would be to extend the furlough scheme indefinitely, because I think that would hold out to people the expectation of a job that may never return, and do so at very significant cost. That is why we need to support those jobs that are viable, and, in addition we need a training package to enable people to get the skills to re-enter the labour market when they are needed.

Kieran Mullan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while some parts of the Labour party see this as a good crisis to exploit, we have actually managed to ensure that our response has helped the least well-off the most, proportionately?

Steve Barclay: It has been a time when most people have come together and worked together to respond to the very legitimate concerns that we all have on behalf of our constituents. The more we can work together across the United Kingdom and with local authorities and other stakeholders, the stronger the Government’s response to the pandemic.

Kim Johnson: The further restrictions announced on 1 October will have a huge impact on the Liverpool city region’s retail, hospitality and leisure sector—a sector that accounts for 20% of the city region’s economy. The end of the furlough scheme and the 20% below self-employed income support scheme will impact thousands of jobs and hundreds of businesses. The £7 million to be shared with other areas is not enough. The city region has therefore called for a support package totalling £710 million, in order to ensure that we have an economy to revive. Will the Chancellor make a statement on what financial support will be made available to the Liverpool city region?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady says that there should be a package for the Liverpool city region of £700 million of additional funding. That would equate to over £23 billion if applied evenly on a per head basis across England. It is important that we are proportionate. Of course, the £7 million is not in isolation; it sits alongside the many other things that have been announced, including  £130 million of un-ring-fenced funding to the Liverpool city region in March; but I am happy to continue to work with colleagues across the House in considering our wider response.

Nigel Mills: May I return to the sectors that are effectively closed by the lockdown rules? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the Chancellor is looking at what support he can give, he thinks about companies in the supply chains to those sectors, which have lost all their orders but so far have not had the benefit of some of the help, such as the business rate reliefs?

Steve Barclay: One of the difficulties when people talk about extending the furlough is that those supplying particular sectors do not simply supply one sector; they usually supply across sectors. In the wider discussion about extending the furlough, not only is there the question of how long, because we do not know how long it will be until a vaccine arrives, but it is often unclear from those seeking an extension which sectors it would apply to and how it would apply to the supply chains of those sectors. The reality is that people do not simply supply one sector; supply chains reach across many sectors.

Chris Bryant: The Minister knows that the Rhondda has not just had to contend with coronavirus this year; we have had the worst flooding of any area in the whole of the UK—nearly a quarter of it was in one constituency—and we have had a major landslide from a coal tip. In February, the Prime Minister promised this House that the money would be “passported” from Westminster to Rhondda Cynon Taf to pay for the repair work. In June, the Prime Minister told me that the work had to be done and that he would be looking at making sure it happened. The Minister wrote to me in July to say that we should be applying to the reserve fund. I cannot underline more strongly how serious this is for the local community. We are one of the poorest communities in the whole of Europe. The local authority will be bankrupted if we do not get the money. There are families who are fearful that they are going to be flooded all over again, and many more who are even more worried that there will be another Aberfan. Please, please, please, just say the money is going to come.

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman has raised this before and I discussed it with the Secretary of State for Wales. As a result of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will ask for an urgent update to clarify with the Secretary of State what the latest is on that. Because of the emotion that I think everyone feels around the national tragedy of Aberfan, we recognise the specific issue in that regard, and I know that the Prime Minister is very sighted on it. To be fair, I think the issue has more aspects to it than simply the individual site that is of most concern; there is a wider discussion with the Welsh Government around flood protection and where that funding is, but I am very happy to follow up. Given  that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue before,  let me follow it up, and I will write to him following today’s exchange.

David Jones: The Welsh Government have imposed movement restrictions in four north Wales counties, an area where tourism and hospitality are the mainstay of the economy. That has had an immediate adverse effect on local businesses, some of which have closed, maybe never to open again. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Welsh Government have been in touch with the Treasury to outline what financial measures they intend to put in place to compensate the businesses that have been so badly affected by this action?

Steve Barclay: I am not aware of any specific representations in respect of the individual case that my right hon. Friend refers to. The wider point I would make is that it is important across the United Kingdom as a whole that decisions on local lockdowns are shaped by the Joint Biosecurity Centre so that we have a consistency of approach that is led by the medical science, and then, on the basis of that, the Treasury can have discussions about any individual issues that arise from that advice from the Joint Biosecurity Centre.

Claire Hanna: Last Friday, in an interview with the BBC, the Prime Minister said that additional resources would be available for Northern Ireland in the light of restrictions due to alarming covid numbers, which are now twice the UK average. There are local restrictions in place, hundreds of students are isolating, and businesses are struggling but have to keep the doors open to pay the bills. With furlough ending and an extra 89,000 universal credit claimants just in the second quarter of this year, people cannot afford to wait and see. When asked whether extra funds would be available, the Prime Minister said, “Absolutely.” When will those funds come?

Steve Barclay: We have provided significant funds to Northern Ireland—an additional £2.2 billion—to cope with the pressures of the pandemic, and that has enabled 300,000 jobs in Northern Ireland to be protected through the furlough scheme, along with an additional 78,000 jobs through the self-employed income support scheme. Indeed, the package of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his winter plan applies in terms of additional support for Northern Ireland as it shapes its response to the pandemic.

Edward Leigh: Does the Chief Secretary agree that the best way to help business is to let business get on with the job, as free as possible from Government control? Will he note that when the Treasury argues against further lockdowns for business, scores of Tory MPs and tens of thousands of businesses cheer it on? After all, to quote the Chancellor, is it not our “sacred” duty to “balance the books”? What is the point of solving this problem by borrowing money? Is that not the socialist way? What would be the point of a Conservative Government if we did that?

Steve Barclay: As a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend is quite right to focus on the importance of value for money and protecting the interests of the taxpayer. He knows me well enough to know that I share that sentiment. On our wider response, it is important that we get the right balance between responding to the virus and doing so in a way that is supportive to the economy. It is a false choice to  see this as a choice between health and economics; they are clearly intertwined and we need to work together in shaping our response.

Alan Brown: It is a horrific irony that while we risk 1980s levels of unemployment, the Chancellor was busy reminding his party conference that Tory values are old and timeless. I appreciate that not every job can be saved, but many more jobs can be saved by a proper extension of the furlough scheme and targeted support for aerospace, aviation, travel, tourism, hospitality, the night-time economy and those excluded to date. If the Treasury is not going to step up, does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government need borrowing powers so that they can provide targeted sector support and localised support where local restrictions might be needed for public health measures?

Steve Barclay: The slightly puzzling thing is that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept yes for an answer. When I was asked by the Scottish Government Finance Minister whether I would give further guarantees on Barnett consequentials, we agreed that, thereby enabling the Scottish Government to make spending commitments with that guarantee, yet that point is not recognised at all. The reality is that it is because of our broad shoulders and ability to act across the United Kingdom that we have been able to protect 930,000 jobs in Scotland at the peak in July, and 65,000 businesses in Scotland have benefited from our loan schemes. Our ability to act across the United Kingdom enables us to better protect jobs.

Robert Largan: I urge my right hon. Friend not to forget areas like the High Peak which, although not under local restrictions themselves, are impacted economically by the local restrictions next door in Greater Manchester. I wish to highlight specifically the events industry, which, if it is allowed to trade again, could be a crucible for economic recovery. The situation is imminent—lots of fantastic events, such as Buxton International Festival, are having to make decisions now about when their event can go ahead next year—so I urge my right hon. Friend to look urgently at measures for the industry.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is quite right that the impact on business is not constrained to those areas most acutely affected by the virus; there is a wider displacement effect on businesses, including in neighbouring constituencies. We very much recognise that issue, which very much shaped the approach that the Chancellor set out in the winter plan, particularly in respect of the cash-flow pressures faced by those businesses. Together with the job support that he brought forward, the package recognises the very real pressures businesses face and will provide comfort as we go through the winter period.

George Howarth: In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he would be willing to work with MPs from all parties because of our concerns about the vulnerability of the hospitality, retail and live entertainment industry. In the light of that invitation, may I suggest that he agrees to meet local MPs from our city region, together with council leaders and the Metro Mayor, for  a constructive discussion about how a comprehensive package for those sectors and others can be put in place as a matter of urgency?

Steve Barclay: As I think colleagues across the House would recognise, I have always been open to meeting MPs from all parties, and I am happy to give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman to meet MPs to discuss these issues. On the Liverpool city region, the point I was making in response to the previous question is that the request for £700 million that has come in will equate to an additional funding commitment of £23 billion. There is a responsibility on all of us, not just on Government, to have a view of the wider value for money of schemes, because £23 billion, in addition to the other packages, is a very significant amount.

Ben Bradley: Some of those worst affected by local lockdown measures will be our young people, who are left isolated or worse still, trapped in unhealthy home environments, and there will be long-term implications for local services that stem from that. Youth groups and organisations that can offer support need help, and the youth investment fund is vital to their sustainability. Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to end the delay to that funding and get that help to the young people who need it?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right that the youth investment fund is a very important allocation—£500 million was allocated in September 2019 under the fund. However, he speaks to a more fundamental point, which is that many of those most affected by covid’s economic consequences are the young, who tend to concentrate in areas such as hospitality that are most impacted. That is why the Chancellor has set out measures such as the £2 billion for the kickstart scheme, the tripling of traineeships, the £2,000 for apprentices and the doubling of work coaches. We recognise that it is not just the number of young people whose jobs go, but the length of time that they are out of the labour market that is absolutely crucial. Both of those are key areas of focus and I look forward to working with him in our response on them.

Ben Lake: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), what consideration have the Government given to the impact of local lockdowns on businesses and supply chains located beyond the lockdown areas? What support will be made available to businesses that are materially impacted by restrictions imposed elsewhere?

Steve Barclay: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), it is absolutely valid for colleagues across the House to raise the wider impact. That is partly why we gave the guarantee on Barnett consequentials, which has meant that the Welsh Government have benefited to the tune of £4 billion. It is why we are engaging very closely with the Welsh Government, among others, on shaping our response, and why the Chancellor set out, through the winter plan, the package of additional measures, building on his plan for jobs—the £30 billion that was announced in July. We recognise that it is not only the areas most affected by lockdown that have pressures in terms of retaining jobs or cash flow challenges; the winter plan spoke to the issue much more widely across all parts of the United Kingdom.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Antony Higginbotham—not here.

Steve McCabe: There are 660 closed and shuttered nightclubs and live entertainment venues across the west midlands. I understand that they are not eligible for any help from the local restrictions support grant. Why not?

Steve Barclay: First, all businesses are able to benefit from the universal elements of the support package put in place by the Chancellor, whether that means loans, tax referrals or schemes such as the furlough. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that the nightclub sector is affected acutely, among all businesses affected. That is not just because it has been shut down from the start of the lockdown, but because it is very unclear when the end will be in sight, in terms of that sector and our ability to reopen. That is why the Chancellor has said, extremely reluctantly, that we are not in a position to save every single job. I think that around a third of nightclubs have repurposed by becoming pubs or reshaping their offer, but I absolutely accept that not all nightclubs will be able to do that. We are trying to target the very comprehensive measures of support on areas where jobs can be saved, but we recognise that not every single job will be saved.

Jo Gideon: In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, more than 11,600 jobs have been protected so far through the furlough scheme and more than £50 million has been made available to businesses to bounce back through various loans and grants. Recently, Stoke-on-Trent was removed from the watchlist and avoided a local lockdown, thanks to prompt local action; however, we are geographically close to many local lockdown areas. I ask my right hon. Friend for reassurance that those businesses in Stoke-on-Trent most economically vulnerable to any local lockdown will continue to be able to access financial support.

Steve Barclay: I am very happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the package of support that the Chancellor set out in his winter plan will assist businesses in Stoke and elsewhere, bringing back jobs that are viable and supporting them in terms of their cash flow. Furlough has already seen more than half the jobs—from a peak of 8.9 million—come back, so it has served a key part of its purpose. I know that my hon. Friend is also a keen champion of the wider levelling up agenda, so as those businesses bounce back, it will also be important that we work together on that agenda, which I know areas such as Stoke should benefit from very strongly.

Clive Betts: In the leisure and entertainment industry in my constituency, Cineworld shut its cinema, Hollywood Bowl has written to me about the problems that it has, wanting a further cut in VAT because of the impact of additional restrictions, Peller Agency has had virtually no work for any of its artists in live entertainment venues since March, and Central Travel and Linburg Travel were offered no help by the Government at all because, perversely, coach companies are not seen as part of the leisure industry. Those are effects on the constituency without additional restrictions; it can only get worse if additional restrictions come into play. Will the Government introduce a comprehensive range of measures to help the leisure  and entertainment industry? Ultimately, if measures are not brought in, such products and offerings will not be available for all of us to enjoy once the restrictions are lifted.

Steve Barclay: I gently take issue with the point about coaches not having support. One of the areas where coach firms have been able to benefit hugely from our response, and to work with the Government, has been in school transport. We were able to secure the additional capacity that we needed in part through the willingness of coach companies to adapt as part of our response. It is not the case that coach companies have been unable to get any business during the pandemic.
On more comprehensive measures, the hon. Member is right that the cinema industry has been hit hard. We were all concerned to see the announcement from Cineworld at the weekend. Together with Odeon and Vue that is 75% of the market, but as he knows it is not simply down to one issue. With cinemas, there is the supply of films—the delay of some of the blockbuster films has had an impact—and consumer confidence. Attendance is significantly down compared with last year, and there is also the impact of the non-pharmaceutical interventions. There is not one single factor, but we continue to work with the cinema industry in shaping our response.

Justin Madders: Dominic Harrison, the director of public health for Blackburn and Darwen said that some of the more economically challenged boroughs are
“being placed into more restrictive control measures at an earlier point in their…case rate trajectory. This has the effect of exacerbating the economic inequality impacts of the virus in those areas.”
Why are some areas being treated differently from other areas, and can the Minister not see the need to have greater transparency and equity across the board?

Steve Barclay: The pace of those medically driven decisions is more, perhaps, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I know has been to the Chamber and answered such questions. I am willing to flag the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the transparency of that process.

Robin Millar: I thank the Minister for the generous and timely support that businesses and workers across Aberconwy have received during this pandemic. Sadly, the same businesses and workers, mainly in tourism, are struggling now under fresh local restrictions that have been brought in by the Welsh Government. I noted the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). Will he press the Welsh Government, when they introduce local restrictions that are stricter than those in other parts of the UK, and do so at lower thresholds than in other parts of the UK, to also provide the funding that the businesses and workers struggling under them need?

Steve Barclay: As I said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), it is important that these decisions are shaped by the Joint Biosecurity Centre and that it takes a consistent approach throughout the United Kingdom. That helps not only with the consistency of support that can be offered to businesses across the UK, but with communication to constituents and the clarity of that message.

Angela Eagle: I welcome the Minister’s agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) to meet local MPs, local leaders and the Mayor to talk about what is happening in the Liverpool city region. The Minister will know that £7 million between nine different local authorities as extra money for the much more severe restrictions being imposed is not nearly enough, so will he promise to keep an open mind about the extra support we need in a region where 20% of our economy is the visitor offer, hospitality and tourism, and where 50,000 jobs and 4,000 businesses are at stake?

Steve Barclay: As I said to colleagues earlier, I am happy to meet Members of Parliament across the House, and I am happy to meet the hon. Lady, who brings considerable experience to these issues from her time in government. However, as I pointed out earlier, it is not the case that it is only £7 million of support. It is important to look at the wider package of support that has been offered, but of course we can discuss that in due course.

Gary Sambrook: There is no doubt that a number of businesses in Birmingham, Northfield and across Birmingham, especially in hospitality, would not exist now if it was not for the support packages put in place by the Government over the past several months. Will my right hon. Friend please commit to looking at as many ways as possible of supporting businesses, especially those affected by the local restrictions and the 10 pm curfew?

Steve Barclay: As I said in an earlier reply, the Chancellor was very clear yesterday that he continues to listen and to strive to be creative in our response. I refer my hon. Friend to the comprehensive package that has already been announced, including the winter plan that the Chancellor has announced, which provides considerable support to businesses through the furlough bonus, the jobs support scheme, the self-employed income support scheme, the tax deferrals, the loans and so on, all of which support businesses in his constituency.

Stuart McDonald: The fact is that more and more people are struggling just to put food on the table, as the Trussell Trust and others have highlighted, so with furlough being wound down, will the Government end the five-week wait for universal credit? Will they also make the £20 uplift permanent and extend it to legacy benefits? These measures are desperately needed.

Steve Barclay: We always keep these things under review. That was a temporary set of measures brought in by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but the hon. Member is right to point to the wider package of support that the Government offer. Following the package of support that was set out in March for individuals, public services and businesses, he will recall that the Chancellor has continued to revise that, with the most recent iteration being the winter plan that he announced in the Chamber a week or so ago.

Mark Harper: A theme of many of the questions, and of some of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s answers, is predicated on the assumption that some of these economic support measures  will be needed only for a short period. My right hon. Friend referred to the potential for a vaccine to solve the problem. Is it the Treasury’s assumption that these measures will be needed only for a short period and that a vaccine will come along and solve everything, or is it more likely, as I believe, that we will see permanent changes to our economy that will require us to accept that a significant economic transformation is required?

Steve Barclay: The significant fiscal measures that we have put in place will clearly have longer-term consequences for the public finances. The Chancellor has been quite clear about that in terms of our response to the future fiscal event. In terms of the timing of a vaccine, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have set out, things have changed since March, when there was perhaps a sense initially that these measures would be needed for a shorter period, and it is now clear that we will be living with the virus for a longer period—at least for a further six months. I know, however, that through the work of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a huge amount of work is going on in the vaccines taskforce, because that is clearly the best way to limit the longer-term damage. However, we cannot guarantee the timing of when any vaccine would arrive.

Emma Hardy: The Minister will no doubt appreciate just how precarious the future of many businesses is and how desperately worried they are that they could face further restrictions and more local lockdowns. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), will the Minister please outline the additional and specific support that businesses that do not have to close but are facing significantly lower demand can expect to receive?

Steve Barclay: One of most important areas of support is avoiding, if at all possible, businesses closing in the first place. That is why, in response to the measures brought forward by the Secretary of State for Health, we have drawn the balance between businesses being open for the majority of the evening and addressing the risk—outlined by the chief medical officer and others—that social distancing tends to be weaker later in the evening. This addresses the concerns of the Department of Health about the increased risk, while protecting the ability of businesses to stay open. It is important that we keep this measure under review and ensure that the modelling and the data evolve so that we get the balance right for businesses.

Jack Brereton: Many of the areas that have been hit hardest by covid are those that relate most to the Government’s levelling-up agenda and that, like Stoke-on-Trent, will be vital for unlocking productivity. Will my right hon. Friend prioritise ensuring that we continue to see a refocusing of investment into these areas as we build a stronger recovery, so that no part of our country is left behind again?

Steve Barclay: There are few stronger champions of the levelling-up agenda in this House than my hon. Friend, and rightly so. I share his determination to ensure that our levelling-up agenda speaks to the people of Stoke and to many other places across the United Kingdom. I look forward to continuing conversations with him as we take that important work forward.

Rachel Hopkins: From 1 November, the job support scheme will only be available to firms that can offer their staff at least a third of their usual working hours. For businesses forced to close as a result of local restrictions, that will not be possible. What do the Government suggest such businesses do in these circumstances to retain their staff who are skilled and who have been trained by these businesses?

Steve Barclay: As we covered earlier, there are specific measures for areas with local lockdowns, such as the £1,500 support for businesses that are closed for three weeks or more. The Chancellor announced a package of measures in the winter plan, including tax deferrals, loans and other cash-flow support, alongside the self-employed income support and job support that he announced in the same statement.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us head up to Harrow so that Bob Blackman can glide his question in.

Bob Blackman: Thank you, ground control.
I thank my right hon. Friend for explaining the current position. He will know that we are currently experiencing an increase in the infection rate in virtually every borough in London. What we do not know is whether lockdowns or further restrictions will take place covering the whole of London or on a borough-by-borough basis. In either case, there will be a huge impact on business, so will my right hon. Friend set out what measures will be in place to support London and each London borough in the event of local lockdowns or a London-wide lockdown?

Steve Barclay: As I have said in reply to a number of colleagues, we will continue to listen and evaluate the circumstances, including as applies to London. The Chancellor has set out a comprehensive package of support that applies to businesses within the London community, assisting them in their ability to retain what is most prized within a business, which is the talent of its own staff, and in addressing particular cash-flow pressure. We responded very much to the feedback that we have received from business leaders, including business leaders in London, as the winter package was shaped.

Catherine West: The International Monetary Fund has encouraged Governments to spend on infrastructure. In London, the infrastructure is the west end and the suburban theatres. What urgent plan will the Government put in place to protect the workers—whether the technicians, the actors, the divas or the stars—to keep our desperately loved theatre going?

Steve Barclay: On the specific point about the theatre, it is sector championed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I referred earlier to the £1.57 billion package that the Chancellor has set out. I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of infrastructure as a whole. Theatre is one aspect, but there is a much wider piece that includes Crossrail, High Speed 2, the acceleration of our road schemes, and broadband in particular to areas of poor connectivity. There is a huge agenda for infrastructure, and delivering that at pace is a key focus of the Chancellor and the Treasury team.

Matt Vickers: The hospitality sector has benefited from an incredible and innovative package of support, and I hope that will continue in a targeted way to mitigate the impact of local lockdown. But if we do not rethink the 10 pm curfew, we could see bars, pubs, restaurants and breweries call last orders for the final time. Will the Government back Britain’s boozers and breweries and reconsider their approach to the 10 pm curfew?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is important that we act in a targeted way both in terms of our economic measures and in our health response to the pandemic. It is about getting that balance right.
On the 10 pm curfew, it is worth reflecting on the fact that we are not alone in that. The Netherlands and parts of Spain, such as Madrid, have taken a similar approach, but it is all about getting the balance right and ensuring that we act in a targeted way, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Vicky Foxcroft: Live music professionals in my constituency saw an average income drop of 97.5% during the initial lockdown. If further local restrictions come into force, the situation is likely to become even bleaker. Given that the sector employs 589,000 people nationally and that their skills are in demand worldwide, will the Chief Secretary extend the remit of the £1.57 billion arts support package to cover live music?

Steve Barclay: We keep all packages under review but, to address the very legitimate point that the hon. Lady raises about particular impacts within the economy, we have extended the self-employed income support scheme as one of the vehicles of assisting many of her constituents and those affected particularly in the arts. It is the case that certain sectors have been acutely hit and where we are not able to save every job in a sector, it is extremely important that we are able to get the support, the skills and the training package in place to people from such sectors in the wider economy.

Dehenna Davison: We can all agree that the Government’s economic support has been a lifeline for millions of hard-working people but in local lockdown areas, such as those across the north-east, hospitality businesses are really struggling with restrictions such as the 10 pm curfew and households not being able to meet for a meal and a pint across Bishop Auckland. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look at how he can offer additional economic and financial support? Some of these businesses have seen their takings drop through no fault of their own.

Steve Barclay: I know that the 10 pm curfew is an issue that a number of colleagues across the House have raised. As I said a moment ago, it is about getting the balance right. We have striven to ensure that venues are able to continue to be open most of the evening rather than, as we saw in the initial lockdown, having to close. It is about protecting the majority of the evening and getting the balance right with the later night socialising that the chief medical officer and others are most concerned about in terms of the risk to public health. It is something that we continue to keep under review and learn from other countries around the world. As I have said, other countries are addressing similar issues.

Mary Foy: Last week, one of my constituents who owns a bridal store contacted me in desperation. Because of the coronavirus restrictions in the north-east, brides-to-be can no longer take a relative or friend to their dress-fitting appointments, a special time for any bride. Ultimately, this has led to numerous cancellations. To echo my hon. Friends, will the Minister commit to providing support for businesses, like my constituent’s, or will the Government allow them to fail through no fault of the owner?

Steve Barclay: This is one of those sectors that has been hit hard both emotionally and economically. One can see the human distress and the impact of the virus in such cases, at what is a pivotal moment in people’s lives, and also the economic distress. It is certainly not the case that this is about the Government letting businesses fail in that regard. The consequences of the pandemic hit particular sectors more acutely than others. We have put in place, as I said earlier, a comprehensive package of support, but it is also the case that not every single job will be protected. Where that is the case, we need to work with people to ensure that we are able to support them back into the labour market.

Stephen Hammond: I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend’s response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about restrictions in London. I have heard from a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises in Wimbledon that the business rate support grant—the relief that the Government made available—was the lifeline that has kept them going. If there are further restrictions to be imposed, may I ask him to look again at that as the way to help SMEs, a vital part of our economy, to keep going?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority when it comes to the business community. I know that he engages extensively with it and understands the issues closely. I am very happy to relay the issue that he raises to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State. As I have said on a number of occasions, we have put in place a comprehensive package of support. It will not address every job, and the Chancellor has been honest with the public in that regard, but it is right that we keep the situation under review. I will take my hon. Friend’s representations on that issue.

Judith Cummins: With the Health Secretary reportedly considering further restrictions on hospitality in areas of local restrictions and with 19,000 people in Bradford still on the furlough scheme that comes to an end in just 25 days, will the Treasury bring in a local furlough scheme to save those very viable jobs, which are now under threat as a direct result of this Government’s decisions?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady raises a legitimate concern, but I do not see the panacea to that being an extended furlough for an indefinite period. What has never been clear to me from those who seek to extend the furlough indefinitely is for how long they would extend it, and how many sectors would be included. We have taken a different approach, as the Chancellor has set out, through the winter plan, the job support scheme and the self-employed income support scheme to support  those jobs that we are able to support. I say respectfully to the hon. Lady that I do not agree that the panacea to this would be an open-ended furlough.

Stephen Crabb: I think there is a growing understanding that we will be wrestling with this crisis for perhaps many more months to come—far longer than any of us had perhaps hoped at the beginning of the pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential we have a longer-term framework in place—a framework of support for families and for businesses through periods of rolling on-off lockdowns and through periods of self-isolation and sickness—and that, underneath that framework of support for society and for business, we need a strong safety net of social security, which is the hallmark of a decent society?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that our response to the pandemic needs to evolve as our understanding of the disease improves but also as we get a better understanding of how long we will live with the consequences of the pandemic. That is at the heart of the Chancellor’s strategy. In the initial phase in March, we locked down to protect the NHS to build our capacity. There was a shift to the second phase in July, with the plan for jobs and more recently with the winter plan as we look to move people from being furloughed at home to being brought back into the workplace. The more tailored approach of which he speaks is shaped by things such as track and trace and the significant funding that the Treasury has put into that programme in order, as he rightly says, that we can be very targeted as we deal with this in the months ahead.

Katherine Fletcher: In areas of Lancashire—in South Ribble, Chorley and West Lancashire—that I represent, I speak to businesses and they get that we are trying to save lives. The businesses they are in are people businesses—they are in events, weddings and bands—and they will put people first, but they are looking at three winters. They would not be here without the coronavirus business interruption loans, the bounce back loans and the furlough. But can the Minister assure me that he is giving every consideration to ensure that those businesses are still here when we are past this awful virus?

Steve Barclay: The Chancellor, through measures such as the extension of the loans to which my hon. Friend refers, and other cash flow measures such as tax deferrals,is seeking to support those businesses, but we do face living with the virus for a longer period. That is why, as our approach evolves, we need to be targeted, so that we get the balance right, not just between the health measures and the economy, but within the economy, where we need to get the balance right between wider fiscal sustainability and the support we are able to offer specific sectors.

Alistair Carmichael: The speculation in the media today that the Scottish Government are about to introduce greater restrictions in Scotland just as we go into the October school holiday is causing tremendous concern to businesses in my constituency, especially those working in the visitor economy. What comfort is the Chief Secretary able to give them that, at this last opportunity they have for a bit of a boost before the third winter comes, they will be  protected and that he will work with the Scottish Government to ensure that they get the support they need?

Steve Barclay: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The response to the pandemic is helped if across the UK we take a co-ordinated approach. For example, Scotland’s chief medical officer sits alongside the CMOs from the rest of the UK; a huge amount of joint work is undertaken through the Joint Biosecurity Centre; and I engage regularly with counterparts in the Scottish Government. He raises the important point that there is concern in the business community and it is important that a consistent message across the UK, followed by the CMOs, is applied.

Points of Order

Layla Moran: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you may be aware, I am chair of the all-party group on coronavirus. On 22 July, in Prime Minister’s questions, we were given a welcome assurance by the Prime Minister that he would “look at” the recommendations we would send him very seriously. During the recess, we wrote to him and sent him the recommendations, but we never received a response. I then tabled a named day question on 17 September asking whether the Prime Minister had acknowledged the all-party group’s recommendations. That was then transferred from No. 10 to the Department of Health and Social Care. The named day, when the reply was meant to come back to us, was 22 September—two weeks later, we have still heard nothing. Our group has been looking at this in order to try to save lives before a second wave. That second wave is now upon us. We have heard moving evidence from those suffering from long covid, from bereaved families and from frontline staff, who deserve to know that the promise is kept to them and the Prime Minister looks at these recommendations seriously. Can you please advise me on what further action remains open to me to seek a substantive and timely response from the Prime Minister on whether he has met the recommendations and whether he has looked at them?

Lindsay Hoyle: First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise this matter. As Speaker, I have expressed my concerns on several occasions about the delays in answering written questions, particularly delays within the Department of Health and Social Care, none more so than in the case referred to in the text I received yesterday from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—she said that she had been waiting since April and had finally got a reply last week. The Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard the instance that has been raised and I hope that they will also take action. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) may also wish to consider raising her concerns with the Procedure Committee, which keeps a watching brief on the timeliness and adequacy of answers to parliamentary questions. I am disappointed on her behalf and, although this does not make it better, she is certainly not on her own.

Alistair Carmichael: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are aware that there are a number of reports in the Scottish media today regarding the possibility of increased restrictions in Scotland. It was suggested earlier today that we might in fact be heading for some sort of circuit-break lockdown. As things stand, it is my intention to go home on Thursday to return on Sunday for business on Monday. I am not, at present, sure if that is actually going to be possible. What guidance can you give to Members, especially from Scottish constituencies, who want to be here to carry out their duties in the House, especially in the light of the reluctance of the Leader of the House to allow us the continuation of digital participation to its full extent?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. While being grateful, I would also remind him that he knows very well that it is not a point for the Chair. The decision on the scope of virtual participation is for the House itself, but his views, I am sure, have been heard by hon. Members across the House. I express his concern myself, as well, in saying that we do have alternatives. It will depend on what news comes in the future, I am sure.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Marriage and Civil Partnership  (Minimum Age)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Pauline Latham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to revoke parental or judicial consent which permits the marriage or civil partnership of a child and to criminalise child marriage or civil partnership under the age of 18; and for connected purposes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine that you are 16 years old, looking forward to your sixth-form education or going into an apprenticeship, and enjoying life, as 16-year-olds should, when all that comes to an abrupt end because your parents tell you that you are going to be married to a man you have never met who is more than 30 years old. You are taken out of school and unlikely to ever return. You are taken to choose your wedding dress and then later taken to the wedding ceremony. Many families, friends and acquaintances are there, but no one—from your teachers to the registrar—asks if you are happy with this. Why would they? A child has no rights, and the parents have given permission, so it is okay.
Anyone who watched the recent drama “Honour”, based on the true story of a girl who was married at 17 to an abusive husband against her will, will understand how shocking this can be. She divorced him, which shamed her family, and her father and other family members and friends killed her. Her sister was also married at 16 against her will to somebody much older than her in this country. She was abused by her husband and now campaigns against child marriage.
Jasvinder Sanghera from Derby set up Karma Nirvana over 25 years ago to provide help to young women, and some men, who have been forced to marry. It has helped thousands of girls over the years, but the sadness is that this charity is still needed. Jasvinder’s sister poured petrol over herself after her unhappy forced marriage and set light to herself in the streets of Derby. Jasvinder has campaigned over many years to stop forced marriage, and we now have a Bill. We need to go further, because so many people are coerced into marrying at 16, and they dare not say anything to the authorities because they are children and frightened. This is what happens to thousands of girls. It is not exclusively girls—some boys are married at this age too, but it is a minority.
Following the first Girl Summit in 2014, the Department for International Development allocated up to £39 million to support global efforts to prevent child marriages. By that proactive contribution, the UK recognised that child marriages result in early pregnancy, social isolation, interrupted or stopped education, limited career and vocational opportunities and a risk of increased domestic violence. Why are we allowing the marriage of children in this country when the recognised age of adulthood  is 18? The Government have signed two international human rights conventions which demand that signatories end child marriage in their jurisdictions. We are violating those conventions and allowing child sex abuse.
The law allowing marriage with parental consent dates back to 1929, when parents were most concerned about property rights. Since then, our understanding of  childhood and marriage has changed significantly. The United Kingdom now requires everyone to be in education or training until the age of 18, and then they are encouraged to pursue a university education. Social aspirations have increased, especially for girls and women. A 2012 YouGov poll on the ideal age of marriage found that only 2% thought that under 20 is the ideal age for marriage, and 49% considered 25 to 29 to be the ideal age. Many young people do not marry until after 30 these days.
Decreasing numbers take advantage of this opportunity every year, or at least those who are registered. In 2017, 43 men and 140 women were married under the age of 18, contrasting with 228 men and 3,486 women in 1929. There is an argument used by Ministers that numbers are so small that it is not worth the legislative time to make this change. However, preventing the harm to those who are married more than justifies the time and effort.
We must remember that many marriages happen outside Britain, and young women and some men are brought back to this country already married. The data underestimates the scale of the problem. Religious and cultural child marriages may not be reported, and the forced marriage unit cannot act where the child does not understand marriage or has been groomed to appear willing. The British legal system is respected and followed throughout the world. UK laws therefore have international consequences.
Let us consider Bangladesh. Having raised the legal age of marriage to 18, with no exceptions, Bangladesh introduced an exception in 2017 allowing girls younger than 18 to marry in special circumstances. One Bangladeshi Government official stated, “Child marriage is legal in the UK, so why shouldn’t it be allowed here?” According to Girls Not Brides, 59% of Bangladeshi girls are married before they are 18. Save the Children, in its “Global Childhood Report 2020”, estimates that half a million young girls are at risk of child marriage because of the economic impact of today’s pandemic.
The UK’s influence is more important than ever, and we should set a high standard. The current law fails to safeguard children in England and Wales, and it undermines the UK’s international efforts to prevent child marriage elsewhere. By abolishing the exception and criminalising child marriage, this Bill would remove an anachronism in marriage law and protect children worldwide, as well as the integrity of the institution of marriage.
We have young people staying in education and training, and they should not be leaving school, education and training to be married, so that they can never have an economic future of independence. They should not be having children too young, and they should not be forced into this situation. At 16, very few young people are  able to fight against their parents; by the time they get to 18, there is much more opportunity because they can see a future of going off to university or further training and having some independence.
Apart from the pandemic, life is much better now than in 1929, and girls in particular have many more opportunities than young people brought up at that time. In 1929 there was nothing to do but to leave school at 14 and go to work, and the work was pretty menial for most girls. Life has changed, and girls can do anything they wish: they can become barristers or doctors; they can work and live abroad; they can travel. They have so many opportunities. They can even become MPs now, which is quite a relief. They will not be able to do any of those things if they miss out on education and training because they have left school to get married.
It is time this country came into the 21st century and changed it completely so that girls, and some boys, are protected while they are still children. We need to safeguard these children. We need to look after them and provide them with a future, which is what most of them want.
Question put and agreed to.
That Mrs Pauline Latham, Sarah Champion, Sir Graham Brady, Mr Virendra Sharma, Henry Smith, Philip Davies, Sir Roger Gale, Dr Dan Poulter, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Ms Nusrat Ghani and Fiona Bruce present the Bill.
Mrs Pauline Latham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 192).

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11 February 2020 (Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

After Clause 2 - Parole board database

Chris Philp: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
This Bill—Helen’s law, as we have come to know it—amends the release provisions that apply to offenders who do not disclose information relating to cases of murder, manslaughter, or taking or making indecent images of children. As Members are aware, it places existing Parole Board guidance on a statutory footing to ensure that parole board members must consider, when making release assessments, any non-disclosure of information relating to a victim’s remains if they were murdered, or the identity of the victims of child sexual abuse.
I once again pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) in campaigning for this Bill. He was inspired by his constituent Marie McCourt, whose daughter, Helen, was tragically murdered. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), many of whose constituents were abused by Vanessa George. Without their tireless work, this Bill would not be progressing through Parliament. I extend to them, once again, my congratulations and thanks.
The Government agree entirely with the spirit and intent behind Baroness Kennedy’s amendment but have some issues with its practicality. Essentially, what it seeks to achieve is already achieved by other means. The first part of Baroness Kennedy’s amendment requires the Parole Board to take responsibility for contacting the victim, but there is of course already a victim contact service as part of the National Probation Service, which has responsibility for precisely that. We think it would create duplication and possibly confusion if two different bodies had the same responsibility for contacting victims.
Their lordships expressed some concern about the effectiveness of the current operation of the victim contact service. In particular, their amendment calls for communications with victims and their families to be done on an opt-out basis so that the family gets contacted automatically, and the contact desists only if the family or victim says, “No, we don’t want to hear anything further.” A pilot of doing exactly that has been running across many parts of the country, although—in response to an inquiry from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—not currently in Devon and Cornwall.
I am pleased to tell the House that, subsequent to the House of Lords’ consideration of this matter, a decision has been taken to roll out that programme nationally as part of the new victims code, which we expect will come into operation in early 2021. We intend to lay before Parliament a negative statutory instrument before long to give effect to that. That is precisely what the other place called for in its amendment. Subsequent to their  lordships’ debate, it has been decided to progress and do that, so that part of the amendment is being done already. Their lordships might take some credit for prompting us, but it was something that we had been trialling previously, and we intended to do that. I hope that assurance that it will be done gives Members on both sides of the House a great deal of reassurance, happiness and contentment.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend will know that when the Justice Committee looked at these issues after a great deal of publicity and some court cases, our inquiry shared many of the concerns of the other House about the effectiveness of the victim contact scheme. Can he assure us that appropriate organisational changes, and additional resources where necessary, have been put in to ensure that the scheme can discharge these important duties adequately?

Chris Philp: I thank the Chairman of the Justice Committee for the work that he and his Committee have done in this area, which has been very thorough and useful. I think we do accept the point that he has made, as have the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and others, that the victim contact scheme can be improved.
I have had discussions with the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who has responsibility for prisons and probation. She has asked me to pass on to the House her undertaking to meet and speak to the Victims’ Commissioner about improving the victim contact scheme. We will also be happy, either in the same meeting or a separate one, to Labour Front Benchers, including the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and, if he wishes, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), as well as the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for St Helens North and their constituents if they wish to join the meeting, to discuss any concerns they may have and any ideas they may have for further improvements to the victim contact scheme. I am happy to put that commitment by the Minister of State on the record this afternoon.
This Bill has progressed thus far with cross-party support. It has been worked on very constructively by those on the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench, as well as by those on the Back Benches. Indeed, it would not have got here without their work, as I said earlier. I hope we can continue in that spirit of cross-party unity on this topic.
Given that the victim contact scheme exists already and the opt-out changes will be made shortly, and given our commitment to work with the Victims’ Commissioner and others to further improve the victim contact scheme, I hope the House will join me in respectfully rebuffing—perhaps that is the word, or perhaps gently pushing back—the amendments that their lordships have sent in our direction.

Peter Kyle: May I start by thanking the Minister for his comments and the tone in which he has conducted this debate? It is much appreciated by those of us on the Opposition Benches, I can assure him.
I start by paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of victims’ families, and in particular the campaigning of Marie McCourt and the families of those abused by Vanessa George. They have begged successive Governments  to time the release of serious offenders in a way that is more responsive to victim circumstance. Supported by my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), they have changed the law for the better.
Observers of this House from the outside may think it is quite normal for people to bring forward legislation from the Back Benches and get it all the way through both Houses, but it is very unusual. In fact, I think I am right in saying that both the Minister and I have attempted in the past to introduce legislation from the Back Benches. In his case, it was to tackle industrial relations in utility companies and in mine it was to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and both of us met with undignified failure. They have succeeded where we unfortunately failed.
Those families will make a significant difference to the lives of victims’ families for generations to come. They did so knowing that it would not materially impact their own situation. They did it to save others from the torment they have endured, and we are grateful to them.
As the House is aware, the first part of the Bill implements Helen’s law. Motivated by the case of Ian Simms, it forces the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of key information during the release decisions of people convicted of murder or manslaughter. The unwillingness of murderers to disclose such details is a source of merciless and unrelenting anguish. That is equally true of the young victims of Vanessa George, who was convicted of sexual assault and making and distributing indecent photographs of children. She was released from prison last year, despite never naming the children she abused. The second part of the Bill guarantees the same protections for victims in such cases.
It is unforgivable that our system has not better reflected the needs of those bereaved by such horrific crimes over previous decades. For far too long, victims and their families have been treated as an afterthought in the criminal justice system. They were described as such by the victims’ commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, in a recent interview. The Bill delivers two new key statutory rights to victims and their families. I hope the Government will continue with this direction of travel apace, because, despite repeated pledges, they have still failed to bring forward the long-promised victims law, which would offer a comprehensive set of rights and protections to the victims who so desperately need them. Such a law is desperately needed now more than ever, given the increasing rate of offences for which no one is ever brought to justice because of the victim and witnesses dropping out due to various different issues. We have pledges aplenty from the Government; we need more action.
There is far more left to do to address the systemic challenges facing victims in the criminal justice system. We on the Opposition Benches will continue to press the Government on this issue and work constructively with them when the opportunity arises, as we have done today. We will campaign unfailingly until comprehensive rights are guaranteed by law for those victims who need them the most. This Bill marks one very positive step forward, and the Opposition proudly support it on its convoluted pathway from the Back Benches to the Front Bench and through both Houses of Parliament. We now look forward to the difference it will make for victims and their families.
Lords amendment 1 was proposed in the other place by Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and seeks to address the asymmetry in offender and victim rights, wherein offenders receive regular communication from the authorities—a luxury that most victims will only ever dream of. This cannot continue, and Baroness Kennedy’s amendment represents an effort to tackle the injustice. However, we are happy to have agreed with the Minister, over the course of recent weeks, commitments regarding the future of the victim contact scheme. As a result, we will not seek to divide the House on the amendment.
I want to thank the Minister and put on the record the open-spirited way in which he has engaged with me and Members from all parties as we have approached today’s debate. First, we accept his argument that the creation of a victim database would replicate the work of the victim contact scheme. Victim liaison officers perform a vital role in keeping victims and their families up to date on the release process. That extends to those affected by the shocking crimes under discussion in respect of the Bill. There is scope to improve the scheme further, and the Government have pledged to review it as part of a broader reform of probation. It is vital that the tragic cases to which the Bill applies are given substantial consideration in any such review.
Secondly, we welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an opt-out system as part of the victim contact scheme. That will help to ensure that families of victims are empowered throughout the criminal justice process, extending support to more of those in need while protecting the right to withdraw from the contact process should that be desired.
Finally, we welcome the commitment to involving the Victims’ Commissioner in any review of the victim contact scheme. In her letter dated 7 August, the commissioner laid out her thoughts on how to make the scheme more responsive to victims’ needs, including by changing it from a transactional service into a package of end-to-end support and considering the benefits of co-location with victims’ services. The Government must work closely with the commissioner to consider the viability of her proposed changes.
I thank the Minister for inviting us on the Opposition Benches to contribute to any future review; it is generous of him and welcomed by us. We look forward to working with him on this issue and finding solutions to the challenges of how we ensure that families can easily update contact details over time. It is important that our political system, and those who work within it, come together when broad agreement can be found. Not only is this how politics can better reflect most people’s experiences in their daily lives, but it is a way that we in this House can demonstrate our respect for the suffering of victims and their families by coming together and putting their needs ahead of any others.

Bob Neill: May I join the Minister and shadow Minister in paying tribute to the victims who have worked so hard to have an appalling wrong righted, and to the hon. Members of this House who have campaigned so steadfastly for that to be achieved? I welcome, too, the spirit in which the Minister has approached this issue throughout; I think we will all end up in the same position.
When the Select Committee heard evidence around these matters of disclosure—I am grateful again to those members of the public who assisted us while  sometimes having to relive painful experiences, as hon. Members can imagine—we had concerns about the effectiveness of the victims service at that time. I am glad to hear that those changes have been made. I hope that the Minister will ensure that it continues to have the resources needed to provide what I think we all accept needs to be a more holistic support service for victims in such circumstances.
We also have to bear in mind the new and perfectly proper responsibilities placed on the Parole Board, ensuring that it is resourced in terms of both money and suitably qualified personnel. I would submit that the chairs of the panels dealing with such sensitive cases should always be legally qualified. I hope and anticipate that the Minister will be prepared to take those suggestions on board. The Select Committee looks forward to keeping an eye on how the review progresses, and I hope that it will not take too long. I also hope that we will, as our party pledge, move towards a victims law in due course, although we appreciate the work that has been done to strengthen the victims code; that is important.
When the Victims’ Commissioner last gave evidence before the Select Committee, she expressed some ongoing concern at the variability of support for victims in general across various parts of the country. Much of the funding comes from police and crime commissioners, and the level of priority can vary—if I can put it that way—from place to place. It is probably not acceptable to have that degree of postcode lottery. I hope that we can engage constructively with the Government to find ways in which we can even out the imbalances to ensure that, wherever the victim is in the country, they get the same and proper levels of support.
This Bill is an important and valuable step forward. It does credit to the parliamentary process that it has been improved and taken forward in the way in which it has. It is in that spirit that we should say to their lordships that, with respect, we regard the amendment to the Bill as now unnecessary. I am grateful to the Minister and to all concerned for this important piece of work.

Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for his remarks, which will go a long way to helping the families involved in the case of Vanessa George. I speak today on behalf of the families of the children who were abused by Vanessa George. Those babies and toddlers—as they were when they were abused—are still children and young adults, so they cannot be named; nor can I place on record the names of the family members who have done so much campaigning and hard work, and who have shared so many painful experiences in order to get this far. They know who they are and Plymouth is grateful to them, and I am grateful to them for their work in this respect.
Our campaign started when the news of Vanessa George’s release was made public. At first, its key objective was to prevent her early release, as someone who still held a power over the families and the victims: the names of the children who were abused. We do not believe that every child at Little Ted’s nursery in Laira was abused by Vanessa George, but we do not know which child was. That means that every single family who sent their most precious gift in the world—their child—to the nursery is living with the uncertainty over  whether it is their child who was abused, and whether it is an image of the abuse of their child that is festering in some dark corner of the web somewhere. That is a cancer that eats away at people, and the courage and determination of the families throughout this process has been a real source of strength for me.
When it was announced that Vanessa George was released, the campaign then moved to strengthen the law. I want to pay tribute to the Government. As a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team, that is not something I find myself doing often, but in this respect, party politics has been put to one side. The Minister, his predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State, their Justice team colleagues and the officials went out of their way to listen to the family’s concerns and bring forward a measure that enacts the campaigns of two Labour MPs. That is testament to the importance of the issues and the sense that, despite the contested nature of our politics, there are things that we can all agree on and work together on to make our country better.
The campaign had two parts. One was tightening the law to make refusal to name children who have been abused a material consideration for the Parole Board in determining whether to release a prisoner. That legislative change is needed and I am grateful that it remains in the Bill. The second part relates to the amendment that was passed in the Lords. That was the softer side—communication and how the victims’ families felt involved in the process.

Jane Hunt: Does the hon. Member agree that it is extremely important that the contact database or the contact scheme that the Parole Board has lists each family member? So often in these instances, the trauma of what has happened leads to families breaking up. It is therefore important for each family member to know what is happening.

Luke Pollard: The hon. Member is exactly right. That point is an important part of the softer side of communication that needs to be built into the system. The majority of the families found out about the release not via communication from the authorities but through Facebook and our local media. That is an enormous tragedy for those families who were unable to prepare themselves or their children for what was coming.
The children who Vanessa George abused and those we think she may have abused and their classmates are now young adults of secondary school age. They are digital natives. They were born with the internet. They know the issues in their community and they have followed this issue, sometimes with greater awareness than their parents. Schools have done a tremendous job in ensuring that they are supported through the process, but we need to build that into a system to make sure that there is proper communication.
I am therefore pleased that the Minister has said that the pilot schemes that were put in place with the probation service will be rolled out nationally, including in Devon and Cornwall. That is a huge improvement on the current situation. I am also glad that they are “opt out” rather than “opt in”. Opting in when the crime or the trial takes place is an enormously difficult decision. As has been said, only one member of a family normally makes that decision to take the lead on liaison with the  authorities. For most people, liaison with the police and the criminal justice system is not something that they go through every day, and it is a difficult decision. The ability to have a system, whereby families can adjust their details over time, when email addresses change and families break up, is important. The enormous stress of this case has led to families breaking up. It is right and proper that both parents—the mum and the dad—have the opportunity to know what is happening place.
I am also pleased that the Minister has set out the involvement of the Victims’ Commissioner. I have met her in relation to this case and I have found her as compassionate and skilled in her current role as she was when she was in this House. I know that her involvement will strengthen the system that flows from the Bill.
The roll-out of the victim contact scheme is important. I am glad that the Minister has made that commitment. I would be pleased to take him up on his offer of being involved with that and to feed in the families’ experiences. I have been sharing not just the communication but the whole process with Ministers. In a meeting with one of the Minister’s Justice colleagues, I spoke about the experience of one family member who gave evidence at the Parole Board hearing. It was a still a requirement to attend in person at that point, in the prison where the offender was held, to read out a statement. I could not understand why, in the 21st century, that could not be done by video link from a local court, sparing the family member the pressure of travelling. That applies particularly in the case of a female offender because we do not have as many female prisons as male prisons and that means travelling long distances, especially from the south-west, to give evidence. Coronavirus has speeded up the giving of video evidence, but I know that the Government were looking at a pilot, which was held in London, and that they are considering rolling it out nationwide. I hope that the importance of doing that can be reinforced.
On the basis of the reassurances that the Minister has provided today—I am grateful to him for doing so—I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in saying that we will not be pressing this amendment. I think that is a good thing because, in my mind, child abuse should not be party political: it should be something where we find common ground and work together. I am grateful to Baroness Kennedy in the other place for tabling the amendment and for pressing it, because in doing so she has listened to the campaign of the victims in Plymouth and has helped to achieve movement, which is very welcome. Vanessa George robbed these children of their innocence. She robbed the families of the trust that they could place in their local nursery, which has now closed. Each of the families I have spoken to has said, “This can’t change what happened, but it can stop it happening to someone else.” That is a really important part of where we are going.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for his championing of the first part of this Bill in relation to Helen’s law. It is enormously difficult to make a case consistently for as long as he has done, but he has done so proudly, professionally and with great courtesy. I know he will  continue to support Marie and the family. Notwithstanding the personal pain that she feels at the release of Helen’s killer, she was pleased to see that this law will come into force soon and hopes that no other family will have to go through what she has gone through. That is a lasting tribute to her campaigning.
I must admit that I was ill prepared to deal with the scale of child abuse that this case presented me with. We need to equip people in public life better for that. Dealing with one case of child abuse is awful, but I was ill prepared for the scale of challenge in dealing, as in this case, with dozens of babies and toddlers who had been abused and the uncertainty around that. I am very glad that, with the support of Labour Front Benchers and of Ministers and their officials, we are getting to a point where the victims will be able to see a form of justice done in improving the system, with better communication on what is taking place.
My final remark is to Vanessa George herself. She maintains a power over the victims by withholding their names. She will know the names of some of the children she abused and photographed and whose images she shared. Wherever she is in Britain at this point, she could help the families and relieve a part of their suffering and uncertainty by naming some of the children she abused. She must know the names. She must know that naming the kids would enormously help the healing process. I appeal to her to do that, because for as long as she holds on to those names, those families will not have peace. That is a really important of this issue.
I thank the Minister for the concessions and the announcements that he has made today. They go an enormous way towards delivering on the campaign on behalf of the families from Plymouth. This is a good Bill. I hope that it can be passed into law by Christmas so that all the families of the children who were abused in Plymouth will know that there is a strengthened legislation and better communication as a result of their campaign.

Jane Hunt: I would first like to express my support for this Bill as a whole. We absolutely must do everything we can to return the bodies of victims to their loved ones to ensure that they are afforded a proper burial and an opportunity to say goodbye. The death of any loved one can have a profound impact on family members and friends. From the testimony of the McCourt family, who have been the driving force behind this Bill, and that of many others, it is clear that that is magnified in cases of murder, and further still when an offender refuses to disclose where they have left the body of their victim. It is also right that the measures in this Bill extend to those who have been convicted of abusing children and making indecent images of their victims. That is a heinous crime, and families of potential victims deserve answers.
Turning to the amendment, I doubt that anyone would dispute the need to ensure that victims and their families are kept apprised of any parole applications and, indeed, of every stage of the parole process thereafter. Over the past few years as a caseworker for my predecessor and now as the Member of Parliament, I have supported constituents of mine such as the Weedon family, whose daughter Amanda was subjected to a frenzied attack by a complete stranger when walking home from her job as a nurse at a local hospital. She sustained 37 knife  wounds. Even more shockingly, it was reported that the attack happened while the perpetrator was visiting the grave of his first victim. The perpetrator of these horrific crimes was sentenced to life imprisonment in the 1980s but made a parole application earlier this year. The family were subsequently informed of this and were able to make a victim personal statement and challenge the Parole Board’s decision in the necessary timeframe. Unfortunately, in this case, the prisoner was released, but the families were at least given the opportunity to make their views known.
It is crucial that victims and their families are given a voice and treated on a level playing field with the offender. Indeed, Amanda’s father, Horace Weedon, who sadly passed away earlier this year, played an active role in the years following Amanda’s murder in improving the support afforded to victims’ families, even delivering a talk at HMP Gartree to prisoners serving life sentences. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his work.
I welcome the fact that, as the Minister highlighted, there is already a well-established process in place, delivered through the victim contact scheme, which keeps victims and their families up to date with parole applications. Sadly, however, there are still too many cases in which victims and their families are not provided with that information and find out that an offender has been released only when it is reported in the media. That is wrong. Even if the Government consider that creating a database is not the right solution, we need to look again at the process and how it can be improved, not just in the specific instances covered by the Bill but more widely.

Wera Hobhouse: I shall keep my remarks very short, but I want to say a few things in the cross-party spirit of the Bill. My remarks became even shorter after the Minister contacted me this morning and explained exactly the concessions that the Government are making. I am very grateful for that. I also pay tribute to the campaigners and Members of this House who have ensured that this important change in the law will hopefully come into force very soon, making life a lot better and more bearable for victims’ families, who have gone through traumatic experiences already.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which will hopefully bring much needed justice for the families of victims. I sincerely hope that this legislation will mean that far fewer families find themselves in the awful position of not knowing what has happened after a loved one becomes a victim of a heinous crime.
The most important issue, which is at the core of the Bill, is improving communication, disclosure and open decision making. The parole function needs to make sure that the views of victims’ families are an essential part of that function. As we just heard, there are too many examples of a victim’s family finding out the result of a parole hearing only through media reports or online. I do not doubt that everyone in the House wants to ensure that our justice system does better to support victims. Parole Board cases are of great significance to victims’ families. They must have the right to know what is happening and to have their say—a meaningful say.
The issue we are debating, which arises from the Lords amendment—much of that has already been discussed—is effective communication with victims’ families. That is currently done through the probation service. The Lords amendment would require the Parole Board to provide the essential and meaningful communication with victims’ families. I understand that the Government are offering not to amend this essential part of the Bill, but to improve the probation service to a point where justice is done for the families of victims.
The Government do, however, agree with part of the Lords amendment and have already been running a pilot for opt-out systems so that families can have regular updates, and they intend to lay a statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure at the beginning of the new year, in line with the new victims code. All that is very welcome. We have also heard that the Government are committing to more contact between the Prisons Minister and the Victims’ Commissioner. Again, that is very welcome.
The proof of those concessions, however, will be in their effectiveness, and we will need to see how effective the system is once it is up and running. My main request is for a proper review of whether the new arrangements have the required outcome of giving the families of victims of terrible crimes the justice that they deserve, and minimising the trauma that families go through.

Chris Philp: With the leave of the House, let me say a word or two in conclusion. I once again thank the hon. Members for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for their campaigning on this topic, and I thank the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench for the constructive cross-party spirit in which they have approached it.
This is an example of Parliament working at its best on an issue of profound importance to victims whose lives have been destroyed by either murderers or child abusers who seek to further torment their victims, even after the offence and their trial and conviction, by intentionally and maliciously withholding information about the whereabouts of the body or the identities of the children who have been abused. It is wicked and unacceptable, and this House, in passing this legislation, sends a clear message to those people that their behaviour is abhorrent and unacceptable, and we stand united against it.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 1;
That Chris Philp, Tom Pursglove, Neil O’Brien, Julie Marson, Bambos Charalambous and Peter Kyle be members of the Committee;
That Chris Philp be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Eleanor Laing: In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet not as usual in the Reasons Room but in Committee Room 12.
In order to allow Members to safely leave the Chamber and Members who are going to speak on the next item of business to enter, I suspend the sitting for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Eleanor Laing: I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. During Committee, the occupant of the Chair should be addressed as Chair of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speaker.

Clause 1 - Implementation of the 1996, 2005 and 2007 Hague Conventions

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment 2, page2,line20,at end insert—
“3F The 2007 Lugano Convention to have the force of law
(1) The 2007 Lugano Convention shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the 2007 Lugano Convention is to be read together with any reservations or declarations made by the United Kingdom at the time of the approval of the Convention.
(3) For convenience of reference the English text of the 2007 Lugano Convention is set out in Schedule 3H.”

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, page2,line21,leave out “3G” and insert “3H”.
Amendment 4, page2,line22,leave out “4” and insert
“(Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 3H to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982)”.
Amendment 1, page2,line24,at end insert—
“(5) The 2007 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom, conditional upon the United Kingdom accession to such Convention.”
Clause 1 stand part.
Government amendment 5.
This amendment provides that regulations made under NC5 may make provision binding the Crown.
Clause 2 stand part.
Government amendment 6.
This amendment inserts a new subsection into Clause 3. This allows Her Majesty by Order in Council to extend to the Isle of Man NC5 (including NS4) and subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 inserted by Amendment 5.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government new clause 5—Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)—
“(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, as it has effect from time to time, so far as relating to private international law (a ‘relevant international agreement’).
(2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.
(3) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, giving effect to any arrangements made between—
(a) Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the government of a relevant territory,
for applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between the United Kingdom, or a jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, and that territory.
(4) Regulations under this section may make—
(a) consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes or for different parts of the United Kingdom.
(5) Regulations under this section may include provision about—
(a) enforcement of obligations arising under or by virtue of the regulations;
(b) sharing of information;
(c) legal aid.
(6) Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))) makes further provision about regulations under this section.
(7) In this section—
‘appropriate national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Scotland—
(i) the Scottish Ministers, or
(ii) the Secretary of State acting with the consent of the Scottish Ministers;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland—
(i) a Northern Ireland department, or
(ii) the Secretary of State acting with the consent of a Northern Ireland department
‘international agreement’ means a convention, treaty or other agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party;
‘private international law’ includes rules and other provisions about—
(a) jurisdiction and applicable law;
(b) recognition and enforcement in one country or territory of any of the following that originate in another country or territory—
(i) a judgment, order or arbitral award;
(ii) an agreement, decision or authentic instrument determining or otherwise relating to rights and obligations;
(c) co-operation between judicial or other authorities in different countries or territories in relation to—
(i) service of documents, taking of evidence and other procedures, or
(ii) anything within paragraph (a) or (b);
‘relevant international agreement’ has the meaning given in subsection (1);
‘relevant territory’ means—
(a) the Isle of Man;
(b) any of the Channel Islands;
(c) a British overseas territory.
(8) This section and Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))) have effect, with the following modifications, in relation to a model law adopted by an international organisation   of which the United Kingdom is a member as it has effect in relation to an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party.
The modifications are—
(a) a reference in this section or that Schedule to implementing or applying a relevant international agreement is to be read as a reference to giving effect to the model law (with or without modifications);
(b) subsection (1) is to be read as if the words ‘as revised from time to time’ were substituted for the words ‘as it has effect from time to time’.”
This new clause contains a power to implement international agreements relating to private international law.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (1), leave out from “implementing” to “relevant ” and insert “the”.
This amendment together with amendments (c), (d) and (g) is intended to ensure the powers in Government NC5 may be used only to implement the 2007 Lugano Convention.
Amendment (b) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (1), leave out “any” and insert “an”.
This amendment with Amendment (f) is intended to ensure that order making powers are confined to the international treaties set out in clause 1 only.
Amendment (c) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (2), leave out “a” and insert “the”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment (a).
Amendment (d) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (3), leave out “a” and insert “the”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment (a).
Amendment (e) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (6), leave out
“Schedule (Regulations under section(Implementation of other agreements on private international law (Amendment3)))”
and insert
“Schedule (Regulations under section(Implementation of other Agreements on Private International Law (Amendment 2)))”.
This amendment would provide for super-affirmative procedure to be applied in accordance with NS3 to regulations made under Government NC5.
Amendment (f) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (7), after “party”, insert
“and which is set out in section 1.”
This amendment with Amendment (b) is intended to ensure that order making powers are confined to the international treaties set out in clause 1 only.
Amendment (g) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (7), leave out
“has the meaning given in subsection (1)”
and insert
“means the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed at Lugano on 30th October 2007 (the ‘2007 Lugano Convention’);”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment (a).
New clause 1—Implementation of other agreements on private international law—
“(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing an international agreement, as it has effect from time to time, so far as relating to private international law (a ‘relevant international agreement’).
(2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.
(3) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, giving effect to any arrangements made between—
(a) Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the government of a relevant territory,
for applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between the United Kingdom, or a jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, and that territory.
(4) This section applies (subject to subsection (5)) where the United Kingdom has authenticated a relevant international agreement.
(5) This section applies only if the proposed agreement is not binding on the United Kingdom as a matter of international law unless it is ratified by the United Kingdom.
(6) Before the United Kingdom ratifies the proposed agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report which gives details of the proposed agreement.
(7) In this section a reference to authenticating a relevant international agreement is a reference to doing an act which establishes the text of the agreement as authentic and definitive as a matter of international law.
(8) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under subsections (1), (2) or (3) for the purpose of implementing a relevant international agreement to which the United Kingdom and another signatory (or other signatories) are signatories.
(9) A draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be laid before Parliament unless, at least 10 Commons sitting days before the draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, the relevant international agreement.
(10) In this section ‘Commons sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons begins to sit.
(11) Regulations under this section may make—
(a) consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes or for different parts of the United Kingdom.
(12) Regulations under this section may include provision about—
(a) enforcement of obligations arising under or by virtue of the regulations;
(b) sharing of information;
(c) legal aid.
(13) No regulations may be made under subsections (1),(2) or (3) after the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the date of enactment of this Act.
(14) In this section—
‘appropriate national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Scotland—
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland—
‘international agreement’ means a convention, treaty or other agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party and which is set out in section 1 of this Act;
‘private international law’ includes rules and other provisions about—
(a) jurisdiction and applicable law;
(b) recognition and enforcement in one country or territory of any of the following that originate in another country or territory—
(c) co-operation between judicial or other authorities in different countries or territories in relation to—
‘relevant international agreement’ has the meaning given in subsection (1);
‘relevant territory’ means—
(a) the Isle of Man;
(b) any of the Channel Islands;
(c) a British overseas territory.
(15) This section has effect, with the following modifications, in relation to a model law adopted by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member as it has effect in relation to an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party.
The modifications are—
(a) a reference in this section or that Schedule to implementing or applying a relevant international agreement is to be read as a reference to giving effect to the model law (with or without modifications);
(b) subsection (1) is to be read as if the words ‘as revised from time to time’ were substituted for the words ‘as it has effect from time to time’.”
This new clause is a modified version of clause 2 removed from the Bill by the House of Lords. This new clause requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament at least 10 Commons sitting days before regulations implementing a relevant international agreement are laid in draft under subsections (1), (2) and (3) requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament before the UK ratifies a private international law agreement with another country and contains a sunset provision.
New clause 2—Implementation of the 2007 Lugano Convention—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed at Lugano on 30th October 2007 (the ‘2007 Lugano Convention’), in the event that the United Kingdom becomes a party to the Convention in its own right.
(2) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland Department before making regulations under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to super-affirmative resolution procedure (see Schedule (Super-affirmative resolution procedure)).”
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations implementing the Lugano Convention in the UK, subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure in NS2.
New clause 6—Report on relevant international agreement—
“(1) This section applies (subject to subsection (2)) where the United Kingdom has authenticated a relevant international agreement in accordance with section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)).
(2) This section applies only if the proposed agreement is not binding on the United Kingdom as a matter of international law unless it is ratified by the United Kingdom.
(3) Before the United Kingdom ratifies the proposed agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report which gives details of the proposed agreement.
(4) In this section a reference to authenticating a relevant international agreement is a reference to doing an act which establishes the text of the agreement as authentic and definitive as a matter of international law.”
This new clause requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament before the UK ratifies a private international law agreement with another country.
New clause 7—Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1), (2) or (3)—
“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) (1), (2) or (3) for the purpose of implementing a relevant international agreement to which the United Kingdom and another signatory (or other signatories) are signatories.
(2) A draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be laid before Parliament unless, at least 10 Commons sitting days before the draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, the relevant international agreement.
(3) In this section, ‘Commons sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons begins to sit.”
This new clause requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament at least ten Commons sitting days before regulations implementing a relevant international agreement are laid in draft under subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Government NC5.
New clause 8—Sunset Provisions—
“No regulations may be made under subsections (1),(2) and (3) of section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) after the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.”
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Government new schedule 4—Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)).
New schedule 1—Schedule 4A—

“Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 3H to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

SCHEDULE 3H

Text of the 2007 Lugano Convention

CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF  JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL  MATTERS
(Concluded on 30 October 2007)
The High Contracting Parties to this Convention,
Determined to strengthen in their territories the legal protection of persons therein established,
Considering that it is necessary for this purpose to determine the international jurisdiction of the courts, to facilitate recognition, and to introduce an expeditious procedure for securing the enforcement of judgments, authentic instruments and court settlements,
Aware of the links between them, which have been sanctioned in the economic field by the free trade agreements concluded between the European Community and certain States members of the European Free Trade Association,
the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Accession Conventions under the successive enlargements of the European Union,
the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which extends the application of the rules of the 1968 Brussels Convention to certain States members of the European Free Trade Association,
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which has replaced the abovementioned Brussels Convention,
the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed at Brussels on 19 October 2005,
Persuaded that the extension of the principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to the Contracting Parties to this instrument will strengthen legal and economic cooperation,
Desiring to ensure as uniform an interpretation as possible of this instrument,
Have in this spirit decided to conclude this Convention, and have agreed as follows—
TITLE I
SCOPE
Article 1
(1) This Convention shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters.
(2) The Convention shall not apply to—
(a) the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession;
(b) bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings;
(c) social security;
(d) arbitration.
(3) In this Convention, the term ‘State bound by this Convention’ shall mean any State that is a Contracting Party to this Convention or a Member State of the European Community. It may also mean the European Community.
TITLE II
JURISDICTION
SECTION 1
General provision
Article 2
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State.
(2) Persons who are not nationals of the State bound by this Convention in which they are domiciled shall be governed by the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of that State.
Article 3
(1) Persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may be sued in the courts of another State bound by this Convention only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this Title.
(2) In particular the rules of national jurisdiction set out in Annex I shall not be applicable as against them.
Article 4
(1) If the defendant is not domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, the jurisdiction of the courts of each State bound by this Convention shall, subject to the provisions of Articles 22 and 23, be determined by the law of that State.
(2) As against such a defendant, any person domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may, whatever his nationality, avail himself in that State of the rules of jurisdiction there in force, and in particular those specified in Annex I, in the same way as the nationals of that State.
SECTION 2
Special jurisdiction
Article 5
A person domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may, in another State bound by this Convention, be sued—
(1) (a) in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question;
(b) for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be—
in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered;
in the case of the provision of services, the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;
(c) if (b) does not apply then subparagraph (a) applies;
in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered;
in the case of the provision of services, the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;
(2) in matters relating to maintenance—
(a) in the courts for the place where the maintenance creditor is domiciled or habitually resident; or
(b) in the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning the status of a person if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties; or
(c) in the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning parental responsibility, if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties.
(3) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur;
(4) as regards a civil claim for damages or restitution which is based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings, in the court seized of those proceedings, to the extent that that court has jurisdiction under its own law to entertain civil proceedings;
(5) as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts for the place in which the branch, agency or other establishment is situated;
(6) as settlor, trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by the operation of a statute, or by a written instrument, or created orally and evidenced in writing, in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the trust is domiciled;
(7) as regards a dispute concerning the payment of remuneration claimed in respect of the salvage of a cargo or freight, in the court under the authority of which the cargo or freight in question—
(a) has been arrested to secure such payment; or
(b) could have been so arrested, but bail or other security has been given;
provided that this provision shall apply only if it is claimed that the defendant has an interest in the cargo or freight or had such an interest at the time of salvage.
Article 6
A person domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may also be sued—
(1) where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings;
(2) as a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee, or in any other third party proceedings, in the court seized of the original proceedings, unless these were   instituted solely with the object of removing him from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in his case;
(3) on a counter-claim arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based, in the court in which the original claim is pending;
(4) in matters relating to a contract, if the action may be combined with an action against the same defendant in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property, in the court of the State bound by this Convention in which the property is situated.
Article 7
Where by virtue of this Convention a court of a State bound by this Convention has jurisdiction in actions relating to liability from the use or operation of a ship, that court, or any other court substituted for this purpose by the internal law of that State, shall also have jurisdiction over claims for limitation of such liability.
SECTION 3
Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance
Article 8
In matters relating to insurance, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Articles 4 and 5(5).
Article 9
(1) An insurer domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may be sued—
(a) in the courts of the State where he is domiciled; or
(b) in another State bound by this Convention, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled; or
(c) if he is a co-insurer, in the courts of a State bound by this Convention in which proceedings are brought against the leading insurer.
(2) An insurer who is not domiciled in a State bound by this Convention but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the States bound by this Convention shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that State.
Article 10
In respect of liability insurance or insurance of immovable property, the insurer may in addition be sued in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. The same applies if movable and immovable property are covered by the same insurance policy and both are adversely affected by the same contingency.
Article 11
(1) In respect of liability insurance, the insurer may also, if the law of the court permits it, be joined in proceedings which the injured party has brought against the insured.
(2) Articles 8, 9 and 10 shall apply to actions brought by the injured party directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted.
(3) If the law governing such direct actions provides that the policyholder or the insured may be joined as a party to the action, the same court shall have jurisdiction over them.
Article 12
(1) Without prejudice to Article 11(3), an insurer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the defendant is domiciled, irrespective of whether he is the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary.
(2) The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 13
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement—
(1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
(2) which allows the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section; or
(3) which is concluded between a policyholder and an insurer, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same State bound by this Convention, and which has the effect of conferring jurisdiction on the courts of that State even if the harmful event were to occur abroad, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that State; or
(4) which is concluded with a policyholder who is not domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, except insofar as the insurance is compulsory or relates to immovable property in a State bound by this Convention; or
(5) which relates to a contract of insurance insofar as it covers one or more of the risks set out in Article 14.
Article 14
The following are the risks referred to in Article 13(5)—
(1) any loss of or damage to—
(a) seagoing ships, installations situated offshore or on the high seas, or aircraft, arising from perils which relate to their use for commercial purposes;
(b) goods in transit, other than passengers’ baggage, where the transit consists of or includes carriage by such ships or aircraft;
(2) any liability, other than for bodily injury to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage—
(a) arising out of the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a) insofar as, in respect of the latter, the law of the State bound by this Convention in which such aircraft are registered does not prohibit agreements on jurisdiction regarding insurance of such risks;
(b) for loss or damage caused by goods in transit as described in point 1(b);
(3) any financial loss connected with the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a), in particular loss of freight or charter-hire;
(4) any risk or interest connected with any of those referred to in points 1 to 3;
(5) notwithstanding points 1 to 4, all large risks.
SECTION 4
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts
Article 15
(1) In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Articles 4 and 5(5), if:
(a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms; or
(b) it is a contract for a loan repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods; or
(c) in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the State bound by this Convention of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that State or to several States including that State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities.
(2) Where a consumer enters into a contract with a party who is not domiciled in the State bound by this Convention but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the States bound by this Convention, that party shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that State.
(3) This section shall not apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation.
Article 16
(1) A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which that party is domiciled or in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled.
(2) Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the consumer is domiciled.
(3) This Article shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 17
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement—
(1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
(2) which allows the consumer to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section; or
(3) which is entered into by the consumer and the other party to the contract, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same State bound by this Convention, and which confers jurisdiction on the courts of that State, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that State.
SECTION 5
Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment
Article 18
(1) In matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Articles 4 and 5(5).
(2) Where an employee enters into an individual contract of employment with an employer who is not domiciled in a State bound by this Convention but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the States bound by this Convention, the employer shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that State.
Article 19
An employer domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may be sued—
(1) in the courts of the State where he is domiciled; or
(2) in another State bound by this Convention—
(a) in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so; or
(b) if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.
Article 20
(1) An employer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the employee is domiciled.
(2) The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 21
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement on jurisdiction—
(1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
(2) which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section.
SECTION 6
Exclusive jurisdiction
Article 22
The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile—
(1) in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the property is situated.
(a) However, in proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the defendant is domiciled shall also have jurisdiction, provided that the tenant is a natural person and that the landlord and the tenant are domiciled in the same State bound by this Convention;
(2) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law;
(3) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the register is kept;
(4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is, under the terms of a Community instrument or an international convention, deemed to have taken place.
(5) in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.
SECTION 7
Prorogation of jurisdiction
Article 23
(1) If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, have agreed that a court or the courts of a State bound by this Convention are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either—
(a) in writing or evidenced in writing; or
(b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or
(c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.
(2) Any communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement shall be equivalent to ‘writing’.
(3) Where such an agreement is concluded by parties, none of whom is domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, the courts of other States bound by this Convention shall have no jurisdiction over their disputes unless the court or courts chosen have declined jurisdiction.
(4) The court or courts of a State bound by this Convention on which a trust instrument has conferred jurisdiction shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any proceedings brought against a settlor, trustee or beneficiary, if relations between these persons or their rights or obligations under the trust are involved.
(5) Agreements or provisions of a trust instrument conferring jurisdiction shall have no legal force if they are contrary to the provisions of Articles 13, 17 or 21, or if the courts whose jurisdiction they purport to exclude have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22.
Article 24
Apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Convention, a court of a State bound by this Convention before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22.
SECTION 8
Examination as to jurisdiction and admissibility
Article 25
Where a court of a State bound by this Convention is seized of a claim which is principally concerned with a matter over which the courts of another State bound by this Convention have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22, it shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction.
Article 26
(1) Where a defendant domiciled in one State bound by this Convention is sued in a court of another State bound by this Convention and does not enter an appearance, the court shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is derived from the provisions of this Convention.
(2) The court shall stay the proceedings so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to this end.
(3) Instead of the provisions of paragraph 2, Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial matters shall apply if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted pursuant to that Convention.
(4) Member States of the European Community bound by Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 or by the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, signed at Brussels on 19 October 2005, shall apply in their mutual relations the provision in Article 19 of that Regulation if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted pursuant to that Regulation or that Agreement.
SECTION 9
Lis pendens—related actions
Article 27
(1) Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different States bound by this Convention, any court other than the court first seized shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seized is established.
(2) Where the jurisdiction of the court first seized is established, any court other than the court first seized shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
Article 28
(1) Where related actions are pending in the courts of different States bound by this Convention, any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceedings.
(2) Where these actions are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seized may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seized has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof.
(3) For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
Article 29
Where actions come within the exclusive jurisdiction of several courts, any court other than the court first seized shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
Article 30
For the purposes of this Section, a court shall be deemed to be seized—
(1) at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court, provided that the plaintiff has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the defendant; or
(2) if the document has to be served before being lodged with the court at the time when it is received by the authority responsible for service, provided that the plaintiff has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have the document lodged with the court.
SECTION 10
Provisional, including protective, measures
Article 31
Application may be made to the courts of a State bound by this Convention for such provisional, including protective, measures as may be available under the law of that State, even if, under this Convention, the courts of another State bound by this Convention have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter.
TITLE III
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT
Article 32
For the purposes of this Convention, ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a State bound by this Convention, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court.
SECTION 1
Recognition
Article 33
(1) A judgment given in a State bound by this Convention shall be recognised in the other States bound by this Convention without any special procedure being required.
(2) Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of this Title, apply for a decision that the judgment be recognised.
(3) If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a State bound by this Convention depends on the determination of an incidental question of recognition that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.
Article 34
A judgment shall not be recognised—
(1) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State in which recognition is sought;
(2) where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;
(3) if it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the State in which recognition is sought;
(4) if it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another State bound by this Convention or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the State addressed.
Article 35
(1) Moreover, a judgment shall not be recognised if it conflicts with Sections 3, 4 or 6 of Title II, or in a case provided for in Article 68. A judgment may furthermore be refused recognition in any case provided for in Article 64(3) or 67(4).
(2) In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the court or authority applied to shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of the State of origin based its jurisdiction.
(3) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the court of the State of origin may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in Article 34(1) may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction.
Article 36
Under no circumstances may a foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance.
Article 37
(1) A court of a State bound by this Convention in which recognition is sought of a judgment given in another State bound by this Convention may stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal against the judgment has been lodged.
(2) A court of a State bound by this Convention in which recognition is sought of a judgment given in Ireland or the United Kingdom may stay the proceedings if enforcement is suspended in the State of origin, by reason of an appeal.
SECTION 2
Enforcement
Article 38
(1) A judgment given in a State bound by this Convention and enforceable in that State shall be enforced in another State bound by this Convention when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there.
(2) However, in the United Kingdom, such a judgment shall be enforced in England and Wales, in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland when, on the application of any interested party, it has been registered for enforcement in that part of the United Kingdom.
Article 39
(1) The application shall be submitted to the court or competent authority indicated in the list in Annex II.
(2) The local jurisdiction shall be determined by reference to the place of domicile of the party against whom enforcement is sought, or to the place of enforcement.
Article 40
(1) The procedure for making the application shall be governed by the law of the State in which enforcement is sought.
(2) The applicant must give an address for service of process within the area of jurisdiction of the court applied to. However, if the law of the State in which enforcement is sought does not provide for the furnishing of such an address, the applicant shall appoint a representative ad litem.
(3) The documents referred to in Article 53 shall be attached to the application.
Article 41
The judgment shall be declared enforceable immediately on completion of the formalities in Article 53 without any review under Articles 34 and 35. The party against whom enforcement is sought shall not at this stage of the proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the application.
Article 42
(1) The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability shall forthwith be brought to the notice of the applicant in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law of the State in which enforcement is sought.
(2) The declaration of enforceability shall be served on the party against whom enforcement is sought, accompanied by the judgment, if not already served on that party.
Article 43
(1) The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability may be appealed against by either party.
(2) The appeal is to be lodged with the court indicated in the list in Annex III.
(3) The appeal shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules governing procedure in contradictory matters.
(4) If the party against whom enforcement is sought fails to appear before the appellate court in proceedings concerning an appeal brought by the applicant, Article 26(2) to (4) shall apply even where the party against whom enforcement is sought is not domiciled in any of the States bound by this Convention.
(5) An appeal against the declaration of enforceability is to be lodged within one month of service thereof. If the party against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled in a State bound by this Convention other than that in which the declaration of enforceability was given, the time for appealing shall be two months and shall run from the date of service, either on him in person or at his residence. No extension of time may be granted on account of distance.
Article 44
The judgment given on the appeal may be contested only by the appeal referred to in Annex IV.
Article 45
(1) The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35. It shall give its decision without delay.
(2) Under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance.
Article 46
(1) The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 may, on the application of the party against whom enforcement is sought, stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the State of origin or if the time for such an appeal has not yet expired; in the latter case, the court may specify the time within which such an appeal is to be lodged.
(2) Where the judgment was given in Ireland or the United Kingdom, any form of appeal available in the State of origin shall be treated as an ordinary appeal for the purposes of paragraph 1.
(3) The court may also make enforcement conditional on the provision of such security as it shall determine.
Article 47
(1) When a judgment must be recognised in accordance with this Convention, nothing shall prevent the applicant from availing himself of provisional, including protective, measures in accordance with the law of the State requested without a declaration of enforceability under Article 41 being required.
(2) The declaration of enforceability shall carry with it the power to proceed to any protective measures.
(3) During the time specified for an appeal pursuant to Article 43(5) against the declaration of enforceability and until any such appeal has been determined, no measures of enforcement may be taken other than protective measures against the property of the party against whom enforcement is sought.
Article 48
(1) Where a foreign judgment has been given in respect of several matters and the declaration of enforceability cannot be given for all of them, the court or competent authority shall give it for one or more of them.
(2) An applicant may request a declaration of enforceability limited to parts of a judgment.
Article 49
A foreign judgment which orders a periodic payment by way of a penalty shall be enforceable in the State in which enforcement is sought only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the State of origin.
Article 50
(1) An applicant who in the State of origin has benefited from complete or partial legal aid or exemption from costs or expenses shall be entitled, in the procedure provided for in this Section, to benefit from the most favourable legal aid or the most extensive exemption from costs or expenses provided for by the law of the State addressed.
(2) However, an applicant who requests the enforcement of a decision given by an administrative authority in Denmark, in Iceland or in Norway in respect of maintenance may, in the State addressed, claim the benefits referred to in paragraph 1 if he presents a statement from the Danish, Icelandic, or Norwegian Ministry of Justice to the effect that he fulfils the economic requirements to qualify for the grant of complete or partial legal aid or exemption from costs or expenses.
Article 51
No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required of a party who in one State bound by this Convention, applies for enforcement of a judgment given in another State bound by this Convention on the ground that he is a foreign national or that he is not domiciled or resident in the State in which enforcement is sought.
Article 52
In proceedings for the issue of a declaration of enforceability, no charge, duty or fee calculated by reference to the value of the matter at issue may be levied in the State in which enforcement is sought.
SECTION 3
Common provisions
Article 53
(1) A party seeking recognition or applying for a declaration of enforceability shall produce a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity.
(2) A party applying for a declaration of enforceability shall also produce the certificate referred to in Article 54, without prejudice to Article 55.
Article 54
The court or competent authority of a State bound by this Convention where a judgment was given shall issue, at the request of any interested party, a certificate using the standard form in Annex V to this Convention.
Article 55
(1) If the certificate referred to in Article 54 is not produced, the court or competent authority may specify a time for its production or accept an equivalent document or, if it considers that it has sufficient information before it, dispense with its production.
(2) If the court or competent authority so requires, a translation of the documents shall be produced. The translation shall be certified by a person qualified to do so in one of the States bound by this Convention.
Article 56
No legalisation or other similar formality shall be required in respect of the documents referred to in Article 53 or Article 55(2), or in respect of a document appointing a representative ad litem.
TITLE IV
AUTHENTIC INSTRUMENTS AND COURT SETTLEMENTS
Article 57
(1) A document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument and is enforceable in one State bound by this Convention shall, in another State bound by this Convention, be declared enforceable there, on application made in accordance with the procedures provided for in Article 38, et seq. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only if enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State addressed.
(2) Arrangements relating to maintenance obligations concluded with administrative authorities or authenticated by them shall also be regarded as authentic instruments within the meaning of paragraph 1.
(3) The instrument produced must satisfy the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity in the State of origin.
(4) Section 3 of Title III shall apply as appropriate. The competent authority of a State bound by this Convention where an authentic instrument was drawn up or registered shall issue, at the request of any interested party, a certificate using the standard form in Annex VI to this Convention.
Article 58
A settlement which has been approved by a court in the course of proceedings and is enforceable in the State bound by this Convention in which it was concluded shall be enforceable in the State addressed under the same conditions as authentic instruments. The court or competent authority of a State bound by this Convention where a court settlement was approved shall issue, at the request of any interested party, a certificate using the standard form in Annex V to this Convention.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 59
(1) In order to determine whether a party is domiciled in the State bound by this Convention whose courts are seised of a matter, the court shall apply its internal law.
(2) If a party is not domiciled in the State whose courts are seised of the matter, then, in order to determine whether the party is domiciled in another State bound by this Convention, the court shall apply the law of that State.
Article 60
(1) For the purposes of this Convention, a company or other legal person or association of natural or legal persons is domiciled at the place where it has its—
(a) statutory seat; or
(b) central administration; or
(c) principal place of business.
(2) For the purposes of the United Kingdom and Ireland ‘statutory seat’ means the registered office or, where there is no such office anywhere, the place of incorporation or, where there is no such place anywhere, the place under the law of which the formation took place.
(3) In order to determine whether a trust is domiciled in the State bound by this Convention whose courts are seized of the matter, the court shall apply its rules of private international law.
Article 61
Without prejudice to any more favourable provisions of national laws, persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention who are being prosecuted in the criminal courts of another State bound by this Convention of which they are not nationals for an offence which was not intentionally committed may be defended by persons qualified to do so, even if they do not appear in person. However, the court seised of the matter may order appearance in person; in the case of failure to appear, a judgment given in the civil action without the person concerned having had the opportunity to arrange for his defence need not be recognised or enforced in the other States bound by this Convention.
Article 62
For the purposes of this Convention, the expression ‘court’ shall include any authorities designated by a State bound by this Convention as having jurisdiction in the matters falling within the scope of this Convention.
TITLE VI
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Article 63
(1) This Convention shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted and to documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments after its entry into force in the State of origin and, where recognition or enforcement of a judgment or authentic instruments is sought, in the State addressed.
(2) However, if the proceedings in the State of origin were instituted before the entry into force of this Convention, judgments given after that date shall be recognised and enforced in accordance with Title III—
(a) if the proceedings in the State of origin were instituted after the entry into force of the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 both in the State of origin and in the State;
(b) in all other cases, if jurisdiction was founded upon rules which accorded with those provided for either in Title II or in a convention concluded between the State of origin and the State addressed which was in force when the proceedings were instituted.
TITLE VII
RELATIONSHIP TO COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 44/2001 AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS
Article 64
(1) This Convention shall not prejudice the application by the Member States of the European Community of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as well as any amendments thereof, of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968, and of the Protocol on interpretation of that Convention by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, signed at Luxembourg on 3 June 1971, as amended by the Conventions of Accession to the said Convention and the said Protocol by the States acceding to the European Communities, as well as of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed at Brussels on 19 October 2005.
(2) However, this Convention shall in any event be applied—
(a) in matters of jurisdiction, where the defendant is domiciled in the territory of a State where this Convention but not an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article applies, or where Articles 22 or 23 of this Convention confer jurisdiction on the courts of such a State;
(b) in relation to lis pendens or to related actions as provided for in Articles 27 and 28, when proceedings are instituted in a State where the Convention but not an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article applies and in a State where this Convention as well as an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article apply;
(c) in matters of recognition and enforcement, where either the State of origin or the State addressed is not applying an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
(3) In addition to the grounds provided for in Title III, recognition or enforcement may be refused if the ground of jurisdiction on which the judgment has been based differs from that resulting from this Convention and recognition or enforcement is sought against a party who is domiciled in a State   where this Convention but not an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article applies, unless the judgment may otherwise be recognised or enforced under any rule of law in the State addressed.
Article 65
Subject to the provisions of Articles 63(2), 66 and 67, this Convention shall, as between the States bound by this Convention, supersede the conventions concluded between two or more of them that cover the same matters as those to which this Convention applies. In particular, the conventions mentioned in Annex VII shall be superseded.
Article 66
(1) The conventions referred to in Article 65 shall continue to have effect in relation to matters to which this Convention does not apply.
(2) They shall continue to have effect in respect of judgments given and documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments before the entry into force of this Convention.
Article 67
(1) This Convention shall not affect any conventions by which the Contracting Parties and/or the States bound by this Convention are bound and which in relation to particular matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition or enforcement of judgments. Without prejudice to obligations resulting from other agreements between certain Contracting Parties, this Convention shall not prevent Contracting Parties from entering into such conventions.
(2) This Convention shall not prevent a court of a State bound by this Convention and by a convention on a particular matter from assuming jurisdiction in accordance with that convention, even where the defendant is domiciled in another State bound by this Convention which is not a party to that convention. The court hearing the action shall, in any event, apply Article 26 of this Convention.
(3) Judgments given in a State bound by this Convention by a court in the exercise of jurisdiction provided for in a convention on a particular matter shall be recognised and enforced in the other States bound by this Convention in accordance with Title III of this Convention.
(4) In addition to the grounds provided for in Title III, recognition or enforcement may be refused if the State addressed is not bound by the convention on a particular matter and the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought is domiciled in that State, or, if the State addressed is a Member State of the European Community and in respect of conventions which would have to be concluded by the European Community, in any of its Member States, unless the judgment may otherwise be recognised or enforced under any rule of law in the State addressed.
(5) Where a convention on a particular matter to which both the State of origin and the State addressed are parties lays down conditions for the recognition or enforcement of judgments, those conditions shall apply. In any event, the provisions of this Convention which concern the procedures for recognition and enforcement of judgments may be applied.
Article 68
(1) This Convention shall not affect agreements by which States bound by this Convention undertook, prior to the entry into force of this Convention, not to recognise judgments given in other States bound by this Convention against defendants domiciled or habitually resident in a third State where, in cases provided for in Article 4, the judgment could only be founded on a ground of jurisdiction as specified in Article 3(2). Without prejudice to obligations resulting from other agreements between certain Contracting Parties, this Convention shall not prevent Contracting Parties from entering into such conventions.
(2) However, a Contracting Party may not assume an obligation towards a third State not to recognise a judgment given in another State bound by this Convention by a court basing its jurisdiction on the presence within that State of property belonging to the defendant, or the seizure by the plaintiff of property situated there—
(a) if the action is brought to assert or declare proprietary or possessory rights in that property, seeks to obtain authority to dispose of it, or arises from another issue relating to such property; or
(b) if the property constitutes the security for a debt which is the subject-matter of the action.
TITLE VIII
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 69
(1) The Convention shall be open for signature by the European Community, Denmark, and States which, at the time of the opening for signature, are Members of the European Free Trade Association.
(2) This Convention shall be subject to ratification by the Signatories. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Swiss Federal Council, which shall act as Depositary of this Convention.
(3) At the time of the ratification, the Contracting Parties may submit declarations in accordance with Articles I, II and III of Protocol 1.
(4) The Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the sixth month following the date on which the European Community and a Member of the European Free Trade Association deposit their instruments of ratification.
(5) The Convention shall enter into force in relation to any other Party on the first day of the third month following the deposit of its instrument of ratification.
(6) Without prejudice to Article 3(3) of Protocol 2, this Convention shall replace the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 16 September 1988 as of the date of its entry into force in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 above. Any reference to the 1988 Lugano Convention in other instruments shall be understood as a reference to this Convention.
(7) Insofar as the relations between the Member States of the European Community and the non-European territories referred to in Article 70(1)(b) are concerned, this Convention shall replace the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968, and of the Protocol on interpretation of that Convention by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, signed at Luxembourg on 3 June 1971, as amended by the Conventions of Accession to the said Convention and the said Protocol by the States acceding to the European Communities, as of the date of the entry into force of this Convention with respect to these territories in accordance with Article 73(2).
Article 70
(1) After entering into force this Convention shall be open for accession by—
(a) the States which, after the opening of this Convention for signature, become Members of the European Free Trade Association, under the conditions laid down in Article 71;
(b) Member States of the European Community acting on behalf of certain non-European territories that are part of the territory of that Member State or for whose external relations that Member State is responsible, under the conditions laid down in Article 71;
(c) any other State, under the conditions laid down in Article 72.
(2) States referred to in paragraph 1, which wish to become a Contracting Party to this Convention, shall address their application to the Depositary. The application, including the information referred to in Articles 71 and 72 shall be accompanied by a translation into English and French.
Article 71
(1) Any State referred to in Article 70(1)(a) and (b) wishing to become a Contracting Party to this Convention—
(a) shall communicate the information required for the application of this Convention;
(b) may submit declarations in accordance with Articles I and III of Protocol 1.
(2) The Depositary shall transmit any information received pursuant to paragraph 1 to the other Contracting Parties prior to the deposit of the instrument of accession by the State concerned.
Article 72
(1) Any State referred to in Article 70(1)(c) wishing to become a Contracting Party to this Convention—
(a) shall communicate the information required for the application of this Convention;
(b) may submit declarations in accordance with Articles I and III of Protocol 1; and
(c) shall provide the Depositary with information on, in particular—
(i) their judicial system, including information on the appointment and independence of judges;
(ii) their internal law concerning civil procedure and enforcement of judgments; and
(iii) their private international law relating to civil procedure.
(2) The Depositary shall transmit any information received pursuant to paragraph 1 to the other Contracting Parties prior to inviting the State concerned to accede in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.
(3) Without prejudice to paragraph 4, the Depositary shall invite the State concerned to accede only if it has obtained the unanimous agreement of the Contracting Parties. The Contracting Parties shall endeavour to give their consent at the latest within one year after the invitation by the Depositary.
(4) The Convention shall enter into force only in relations between the acceding State and the Contracting Parties which have not made any objections to the accession before the first day of the third month following the deposit of the instrument of accession.
Article 73
(1) The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.
(2) In respect of an acceding State referred to in Article 70, the Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the deposit of its instrument of accession. As of that moment, the acceding State shall be considered a Contracting Party to the Convention.
(3) Any Contracting Party may submit to the Depositary a text of this Convention in the language or languages of the Contracting Party concerned, which shall be authentic if so agreed by the Contracting Parties in accordance with Article 4 of Protocol 2.
Article 74
(1) This Convention is concluded for an unlimited period.
(2) Any Contracting Party may, at any time, denounce the Convention by sending a notification to the Depositary.
(3) The denunciation shall take effect at the end of the calendar year following the expiry of a period of six months from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of denunciation.
Article 75
The following are annexed to this Convention—
a Protocol 1, on certain questions of jurisdiction, procedure and enforcement,
a Protocol 2, on the uniform interpretation of this Convention and on the Standing Committee,
a Protocol 3, on the application of Article 67 of this Convention,
Annexes I through IV and Annex VII, with information related to the application of this Convention,
Annexes V and VI, containing the certificates referred to in Articles 54, 58 and 57 of this Convention,
Annex VIII, containing the authentic languages referred to in Article 79 of this Convention, and
Annex IX, concerning the application of Article II of Protocol 1.
These Protocols and Annexes shall form an integral part of this Convention.
Article 76
Without prejudice to Article 77, any Contracting Party may request the revision of this Convention. To that end, the Depositary shall convene the Standing Committee as laid down in Article 4 of Protocol 2.
Article 77
(1) The Contracting Parties shall communicate to the Depositary the text of any provisions of the laws which amend the lists set out in Annexes I through IV as well as any deletions in or additions to the list set out in Annex VII and the date of their entry into force. Such communication shall be made within reasonable time before the entry into force and be accompanied by a translation into English and French. The Depositary shall adapt the Annexes concerned accordingly, after having consulted the Standing Committee in accordance with Article 4 of Protocol 2. For that purpose, the Contracting Parties shall provide a translation of the adaptations into their languages.
(2) Any amendment of Annexes V through VI and VIII through IX to this Convention shall be adopted by the Standing Committee in accordance with Article 4 of Protocol 2.
Article 78
(1) The Depositary shall notify the Contracting Parties of—
(a) the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession;
(b) the dates of entry into force of this Convention in respect of the Contracting Parties;
(c) any declaration received pursuant to Articles I to IV of Protocol 1;
(d) any communication made pursuant to Article 74(2), Article 77(1) and paragraph 4 of Protocol 3.
(2) The notifications will be accompanied by translations into English and French.
Article 79
This Convention, drawn up in a single original in the languages listed in Annex VIII, all texts being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the Swiss Federal Archives. The Swiss Federal Council shall transmit a certified copy to each Contracting Party.
In witness whereof, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Convention.
Done at Lugano, on 30 October 2007.”
New schedule 2—Super-affirmative resolution procedure—
“1 If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, the Secretary of State Minister may lay before Parliament—
(a) draft regulations, and
(b) an explanatory document.
2 The explanatory document must introduce and give reasons for implementing the international agreement.
3 Subject as follows, if after the expiry of the 40-day period the draft regulations laid under subsection (1) are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Minister may make regulations in the terms of the draft regulations.
4 The procedure in paragraphs (5) to (8) shall apply to the draft regulations instead of the procedure in paragraph (3) if—
(a) either House of Parliament so resolves within the 30-day period, or
(b) a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft regulations so recommends within the 30-day period and the House to which the recommendation is made does not by resolution reject the recommendation within that period.
5 The Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
6 If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the draft regulations.
7 If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to proceed with the draft regulations but with material changes, the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft of the regulations, and
(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed.
8 If the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations.
9 For the purposes of this Schedule regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations or revised draft regulations if they contain no material changes to their provisions.
10 In this paragraph, references to the ‘30-day’, ‘40-day’ and ‘60-day’ periods in relation to any draft regulations are to the periods of 30, 40 and 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.
11 For the purposes of paragraph 10 no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.”
This new Schedule would apply the super-affirmative resolution procedure to regulations implementing the Lugano Convention in the UK (see NC2).
New schedule 3—Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2))—
“Restrictions on power to make regulations
1 (1) Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)) may not include—
(a) provision that confers power to legislate by means of regulations, orders, rules or other subordinate instrument (other than rules of procedure for courts or tribunals);
(b) provision that creates an offence for which an individual who has reached the age of 18 (or, in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland, 21) is capable of being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two years (ignoring any enactment prohibiting or restricting the imprisonment of individuals who have no previous convictions).
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not prevent the modification of a power to legislate conferred otherwise than under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)), or the extension of any such power to purposes of a similar kind to those for which it was conferred.
(3) A power to give practice directions or other directions regarding matters of administration is not a power to legislate for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a).
Regulations to be made by statutory instrument or statutory rule
2 The power to make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2))—
(a) is exercisable by statutory instrument, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)), in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department.
Parliamentary or assembly procedure
3 (1) This paragraph applies to a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)).
(2) If the instrument contains (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) provision made for the purpose of implementing or applying, in relation to the United Kingdom or a particular part of the United Kingdom, any relevant international agreement that has not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)) or otherwise),
(b) provision made for the purpose of giving effect, in relation to the United Kingdom or a particular part of the United Kingdom, to any relevant arrangements that relate to a particular territory and have not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under that section or otherwise),
(c) provision that creates or extends, or increases the penalty for, a criminal offence, or
(d) provision that amends primary legislation,
it may not be made unless it has been approved under the super-affirmative procedure (see paragraph 4).
(3) In this Schedule ‘relevant arrangements’ means arrangements of the kind mentioned in section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)) (3).
(4) If sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to the instrument, it may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
Super-affirmative procedure
4 (1) If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament—
(a) draft regulations, and
(b) an explanatory document.
(2) The explanatory document must introduce and give reasons for implementing the international agreement.
(3) Subject as follows, if after the expiry of the 40-day period the draft regulations laid under sub-paragraph (1) are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the draft regulations.
(4) The procedure in sub-paragraphs (5) to (8) shall apply to the draft regulations instead of the procedure in sub-paragraph (3) if—
(a) either House of Parliament so resolves within the 30-day period, or
(b) a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft regulations so recommends within the 30-day period and the House to which the recommendation is made does not by resolution reject the recommendation within that period.
(5) The Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(6) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the draft regulations.
(7) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the Secretary of State wishes to proceed with the draft regulations but with material changes, the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft of the regulations, and
(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed.
(8) If the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations.
(9) For the purposes of this paragraph regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations or revised draft regulations if they contain no material changes to their provisions.
(10) In this paragraph, references to the ‘30-day’, ‘40-day’ and ‘60-day’ periods in relation to any draft regulations are to the periods of 30, 40 and 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.
(11) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (10) no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
Scottish affirmative procedure
5 (1) This paragraph applies to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)).
(2) The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).
Northern Ireland affirmative procedure
6 (1) A Northern Ireland department may not make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.
(2) Section 41(3) of that Act applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) in relation to the laying of a draft as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment.
Interpretation
7 In this Schedule—
‘amend’ includes repeal or revoke;
‘primary legislation’ means any provision of—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
‘relevant arrangements’ has the meaning given in paragraph 3(3);
‘relevant international agreement’ has the same meaning as in section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)).”
This new schedule is linked to Amendment (e) to Government NC5 and makes provision for regulations made by the Secretary of State under Government NC5 to be subject to super-affirmative procedure, and for all regulations made under that section by Scottish Ministers or Northern Ireland departments to be subject to the relevant affirmative procedure.
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 8, in title,line1, at end add
“and the Lugano Convention of 2007;”
This amendment is consequential on either Amendment 1 or on Amendments 2 to 4 and NS1.
Amendment 9,line1, at end add
“and to provide for the implementation of other international agreements on private international law, subject to certain conditions.”
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 10,line1, at end add
“and to provide, subject to a super-affirmative procedure, for the implementation of the Lugano Convention of 2007.”
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NS2.
Amendment 11,line1, at end add
“and the Lugano Convention of 2007; and to provide, subject to consultation and a super-affirmative procedure, for the implementation of other international agreements on private international law.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment (e) to Government NC5 and NS3.

Jonathan Djanogly: The main outstanding issue with the Bill concerns parliamentary scrutiny—that is, of the UK’s accession to a private international law treaty itself and then concerning orders made pursuant to that treaty. To those Members who may have been mesmerised by the complexity of the amendments today, I should say that this was not helped by the Government tabling their amendments only late last week, which required an element of guesswork for everyone else. Having said that, this belies a high level of consistency in the approach taken with tabled amendments by those who remain concerned at the Government’s position, as I shall explain.
Following Second Reading, the Government have unfortunately decided to re-table, almost unamended, the order-making powers as new clause 5, which was so decisively rejected in the other place. Despite multiple meetings with Ministers—where, I have to say, they have only been polite and listening—I am not much the wiser about the Government’s reasons for what can only be seen as a significant proposed extension of the power of the Executive.
The Government’s hinted amendment to remove criminal sanctions of more than two years’ sentencing from the order-making powers would be a good start but would not be nearly enough. I have therefore tabled amendment 2 and others, in my and others’ names. Those amendments need to be put into the context of the Bill as a whole. That is because the Bill only deals with the UK’s entering specific existing PIL treaties. It does not look at how we approve, or scrutinise entering, other future PIL treaties in the first place. Then it goes on to give the broad order-making powers for any unnamed future PIL treaties. I would suggest that, by focusing on future order-making powers, rather than the initial treaties themselves, it is effectively putting the cart before the horse.
Let us look at the initial treaty scrutiny in more detail. What is clear—and it is between both Houses—is that there is not a demand for approval by Parliament prior to signing of PIL treaties, in the same way, for instance, as exists, and is being argued for in the Trade Bill, for free trade agreements, so it is surely even more important that we have in place a modern, efficient and fair system for scrutinising PIL treaties before their ratification. The current system for doing so is via the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG—but no fewer than three Lords Committee reports over the past two years have described that legislation, based as it is on the 1924 Ponsonby convention, as outdated, inadequate, flawed and in urgent need of reform. In practice, a  system designed a century ago to debate relatively simple trade deals was hidden behind the scrutiny and legislator approval afforded by our membership of the EU. Post Brexit, we now need a modern system that equates to those being used by our negotiating partners.
Different Departments of State are giving varying support for reform of CRaG, but none seems to wish to take ownership of it. It would be really good to have the Minister say today that the CRaG legislation does need reform and that his Department will take responsibility for that reform process. The issue is important, and intrinsic to our attitude to order-making powers in the Bill; because if, as those Lords Committees have been suggesting, there were to be a specific treaty Committee, and such a Committee could insist on a debate in Government time within a set period, with specific guidelines on access to information, the scrutiny of amendments, mandates, devolved Administration consultation and calls for evidence, then attitudes to order-making under these treaties would surely be somewhat more understanding.
When pointing out our lack of scrutiny compared with other countries, Ministers have said that although, yes, they admit it is true for the United States, Japan and the European Union, it is not true for Commonwealth countries such as Australia. I took that somewhat at face value, but a month ago there was a report by Emily Jones and Anna Sands of Oxford University, and they looked at the Australian equivalent system. In some ways, technically, it is similar to that of the UK; the power to enter treaties is a prerogative power. However, in practice, in the Australian system, once a treaty has been signed it is laid before Parliament for at least 15 joint sitting days before a binding treaty action is taken—20 days for major treaties—and the Government provides a national interest analysis to inform the Committee scrutiny work. There is also a very well established Joint Standing Committee system, which was set up as far back as 1996. The point being that, yes, I have heard Ministers say that we have the same system as in Australia, and technically we could say that; but in practice, they have a very much further developed scrutiny process than we have, and actually in both Australia and Canada, there are significant demands to move to a more United States-type system.
With that in mind, and as a first step, I tabled, in new clause 1 and as a stand-alone provision in new clause 6, a requirement that a Minister should lay a report before Parliament before the UK ratifies a PIL agreement with another country. I do not suggest that as an alternative to general reform of the CRaG Act, or as a move to the superior Australian system, but I move it as a reminder that the Justice Department should be adopting better practice, whatever happens with CRaG.
As things stand, however, these order-making powers attach to any PIL treaty made at any time in the future. That is much too broad. For instance, it treats laws on signing international business contracts or international financial bond issues as bundled together with the laws dealing with international divorces or child contact, which is surely wrong. That is the purpose behind amendment 2 and subsection (13) of new clause 1. A similar approach is adopted in Opposition amendments (a) and (b) to Government new clause 5. On the one hand, clause 1 is extended to include other treaties that we want to join; I have inserted Lugano, but there may be others. On the other hand, the new clause 5 order-making  powers are restricted only to those treaties mentioned in clause 1, and not all PIL treaties now or at any time in the future, as provided in Government new clause 5.
Given the Government’s possible rejection of amendments 1 and 2, I think it important that, as a fall-back alternative, those Government new clause 5 order-making powers should be subject to a sunset provision. Although I do not agree with the arguments that these broad powers are needed in every case to sort things out in the aftermath of Brexit, at least with the sunset provision we would have a prospective return to normality. That is why there is a two-year sunset provision to the order-making powers in my new clause 1 and as a stand-alone in my new clause 8. Just as an improved scrutiny process is needed for initially entering these PIL treaties, it is also important when it comes to the orders made in respect of those PIL treaties. To be frank, I am currently not satisfied that Ministers have these important processes in place.
I have mentioned the CRaG Act, but also important is how Committees of the House are given a strong and ordered scrutiny role for future PIL treaties. I note that the Justice Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), was not even mentioned on Second Reading when the Minister spoke about consulting with Committees in the other place. My hon. Friend may well wish to address that in his comments later, but to me it was a somewhat stark reminder of how our scrutiny processes here are far from what they should be.
In an attempt to help the scrutiny process, new clauses 1 and 7 contain a further proposal that orders to implement a relevant international agreement can be laid only if a report is issued at least 10 Commons sitting days before laying such regulations—less than they have in Australia, I note. Such a report would give details of, and the reasons for, the agreement.
The official Opposition and the Scottish National party have taken a slightly different approach by proposing super-affirmative procedures, which seem to me to be also a reasonable way to improve scrutiny and which deserve the Minister’s consideration. As I said initially, the various parties’ amendments today are remarkably similar despite their quantity. I hope that that has not gone unnoticed by the Government.
In conclusion, we are talking about private international treaties that normally take many years to gestate. They are important for cross-border commerce and social issues, but are very rarely party political. There is rarely, if ever, anything fast moving about their formation—that is something of an understatement, I think—and there should be plenty of time for proper scrutiny of both their adoption and orders made in relation to them.
Whatever happens here today, the Bill needs to go back to the other place. I hope that that will provide a breathing space for Ministers to take stock of the issues at hand and agree a compromise position that should, frankly, have been reached by now.

Bob Neill: I rise in support of the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I agree with and adopt the arguments that he has made—in particular, in relation to scrutiny and the inadequacy of the current arrangements under  the CRaG Act. That is not satisfactory, and we are going to have to address it sooner or later. As a consequence of leaving the European Union, we will be signing a great number of international treaties and other important international obligations, too—free trade agreements of many kinds. We do have to put in place a fit-for-purpose system, and relying on the Ponsonby convention really is not sustainable at the current time.
I had the pleasure, funnily enough, of knowing the third Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—now no longer with us—who was very active in London government, and it was his grandfather who was responsible for this. That is itself indicative of the passage of time. It was in 1924, at the time of the Zinoviev letter, when this convention was put in place, so we really do have to have something—with every respect to the memory of the Lords Ponsonby—that is more fit for purpose for the modern time, particularly because this deals with very important issues and because international treaties have themselves become much more complex and very frequently now have implications for domestic law, as well as international treaty law obligations. Therefore, a new system, as set out of my hon. Friend, for scrutinising these issues is something we have to do at some point.
The one issue that does need to be dealt with quickly—my hon. Friend is right about how long such treaties take—is that we should sign up to the Lugano convention as a matter of absolute urgency. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of our departing from the European Union that we will leave one of the most sophisticated and effective means of civil justice co-operation that exists. That was not probably something very much debated during the referendum, and it is perhaps collateral damage in that sense of the broader decision that was taken, which I have to respect, but it is an important potential loss for British legal services and British business.
That can be made good if we swiftly joined Lugano, and a number of other international conventions, including the various Hague conventions, that go with it. That is why our amendment would in fact place joining Lugano in the Bill, although I will not read out new schedule 1 in detail. There is a real concern among businesses, as well as among lawyers, of a lacuna. At the moment, any British company or individual contracting with someone in the EU or the European Free Trade Association for that matter would, by virtue of our membership of the EU, be part of the Brussels I and Brussels II recast conventions and also of the Rome conventions in relation to domestic family law. Those enable contracts to be recognised and enforced, and judgments of the courts on those contracts to be recognised and enforced automatically in any of the member states. We have that advantage at the moment by virtue of our membership of the EU, carried over in the transition period, but that will go.
Obviously, for any contract to be worth its weight, it has to be enforceable—there is no point in having it otherwise—and that runs across every type of business. There is the significant and highly lucrative development of derivatives and other financial instruments, in which the City of London remains a world leader, and they have to be enforceable should they ever be called upon, as do contracts for manufacturers or the supply of agricultural produce. Contracts for any type of good or  service that have an international dimension have to be effectively enforceable, and the same applies for the rights of individuals.
For example, for the British tourist or business person abroad who is injured in a road accident where the defendant—the driver at fault—is resident in one of the continental states, at the moment they can pursue their action in Bromley county court if need be or in the High Court to get a judgment and then have it enforced in France, Germany or elsewhere. Without getting into Lugano, there will be a gap in that person’s ability to seek justice and redress. It would be unconscionable if we should get ourselves into that state of affairs.
There is also the position of the single parent if the father, perhaps, of a child has moved to one of the EU jurisdictions. At the moment, the mother can enforce the judgment of the British family courts for maintenance payments, access arrangements and so on. They can be enforced in the place where the father is domiciled, and she can get her money. Again, it would be unconscionable if we were to have a gap. I know that that is not what the Minister wants, and I know that the Government are striving earnestly to achieve this, but at the moment we do not have it. If I get the chance, I may say more about that on Third Reading, but that is why we think giving statutory provision for Lugano in the Bill demonstrates its importance.
As the negotiations go forward, it is obviously important that we get a deal on free trade in relation to goods and tariffs, but absolutely as important is that we get a deal on judicial co-operation—whether criminal and police co-operation, but also civil co-operation. I hope that our negotiators will be saying, “If we get a deal with the EU, part of that must include the Commission dropping its current objections to the UK joining Lugano.” I hope that that is a negotiating gambit at the moment. The EFTA members are happy for us to join. The EU members at the moment, on the advice of the Commission, are not. This may not be easy, because France and Germany, in particular, have a history of being highly protective towards their jurisdictions in matters of legal services, so it is not something that is to be a footnote for Mr Frost’s agenda—the full Frost agenda, if I can put it that way. It should be central. That is why we think it is sufficiently important to flag it up on the face of the Bill. The Minister knows that, and I think it needs to be stated and put out there, right across Government.
My other points relate to scrutiny matters and the need for us to move forward, because there will be other important treaties that we will need to sign up to. I am grateful for the briefings given by the Law Society and the Bar Council in that regard, and I ought to refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is important, for example, that, as well as signing up to Lugano, we have a means of drawing on the choice of court convention 2005. That is critical as a supplement to Lugano. It is important that we should move to joining the Hague judgments convention 2019, which the UK was instrumental in developing. Putting those two together will be very important for the long-term future of English law clauses in many international contracts. There is a concern otherwise and some evidence already of suggestions of international contracts now having ouster clauses from English law, rather than having specific buy-in clauses to English law. That would  be damaging to our position as an international commercial law centre and we want to avoid that. There has to be a means of dealing with that swiftly—there is no question of that—but there also has to be proper scrutiny, because these are complex matters.
We also need, of course, to be in Lugano as soon as possible, so that we can deal with the much vexed question of the “Italian torpedo”, which is not a piece of naval history, but is, in fact, what is sometimes described as a race to the courts. It is about going to the court where a party can claim some residence that is likely to get them the easiest and swiftest deal. It is a name from an Italian law professor, so it is not meant with any disrespect to Italians. This gets to the problem of conflicting cases being run in different jurisdictions—a case being run in Italy and a case being run in the UK, for example, on the same subject matter. It is often family work. To change Lugano, we have to be in it, so that is why, again, getting into Lugano swiftly is absolutely critical. That is all the more important in those cases, since we will not be able to rely on the Brussels regime, as it has been recast, largely—ironically—as a result of work by British Ministers and British jurists to improve the system. That is why we need a proper system for ratification.
The other important point to make at this stage is there are some significant gaps, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, in terms of how we go forward. We know, for example, that within the international conventions to which we seek to adhere, there are ousters at the moment by the EU in relation to contracts for insurance. The insurance market is very important to the United Kingdom, so we have to find a means of making sure that we will have effective recognition and enforcement of judgments in relation to insurance contracts. That is an important issue for the United Kingdom. We will need a means of dealing with what appear to be slightly inconsistent approaches—between the approach in the Bill and that in some of the regulations that were brought in under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, set in tandem with the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That is essentially about how we resolve disputes after exit day. There is a distinction in the approach adopted between common law and EU law in those two separate regulations, so that needs to be ironed out as a matter of some speed. Otherwise, we run the risk of conflict.
In fact, the House of Lords European Union Committee, back in 2016-17, highlighted the risk of adverse consequences for business and the importance of having certainty with this on the choices that businesses are making as to whether or not to select English contract law as the law governing commercial relationships. Of course the same would apply, where relevant, to Scots contract law because both jurisdictions have well-developed legal processes and a good reputation in those fields, so it is important that we preserve that. But the way in which the Government are doing it, with this very broad-ranging regulation-making power, is troubling.
As a former criminal practitioner, I have a particular issue with the ability the Bill at the moment gives the Government to increase penalties and, potentially, to create new offences by statutory instrument. We all know that certain types of offence have been created over the years by SIs, and the Minister and I have both dealt with them when in practice at the Bar, but generally  they are of a regulatory nature—for example, they deal with health and safety, construction or vehicles. Taking out offences that have a sentence of more than two years as a maximum penalty is a start, but I am sure the Minister will know that offences carrying less than two years’ imprisonment can have profound reputational consequences for those who may be convicted of them. Often, the fact of the conviction of the offence will destroy someone’s reputation or career, rather than, of itself, the length of the sentence. I therefore hope the Government will reflect again on whether it is appropriate to use these SIs for the creation or extension of any type of criminal offence or penalty without a much greater level of scrutiny, which one would ordinarily expect. That is why the super-affirmative procedure offers a way forward, but better still let us use these to deal with regulatory and civil law matters, not ones that touch on the liberty or reputation of the subject.
It is important that we come to a clear decision on how we go forward with the considerable detail that will need to be put together once we have left. As well as getting into Lugano, a lot of these other SIs due to come into force at the end of the transition period were brought in swiftly at the time, and the Bar Council has expressed concern at the lack of consultation with the professions on them. I hope that the Minister can now make this good by undertaking that there will be the closest possible consultation with the specialists in the profession, for example, with the Family Law Bar Association, the Law Society’s family law committee and the Lord Chancellor’s international law committee, which is headed by distinguished jurists. Let us reach out to the expertise in the legal community in the UK and not do it “in-house” within Whitehall; let us bring in the important expertise we have elsewhere.
As to what we are going to do about arbitral arrangements, we have a growing arbitration centre in the UK. Arbitration and mediation are often seen as an important way forward for international dispute resolution, and we need to have a firm framework upon which we can undertake those matters in the future. The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon and I have tabled are not intended to obstruct the Bill; they would help its passage through the other place, where I fear it will otherwise have some difficulty. The Minister has seen the speeches in the other place, so there is a bit of enlightened self-interest here. I urge the Minister to listen favourably to what we say and let us see whether we can find some compromise and undertakings at least on the way forward that will meet some of those legitimate concerns.

John Howell: Let me first declare an interest, as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I take a different view on this Bill from my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). When I looked at the Bill and what it does, two words came out as being necessary to preserve, the first of which was agility. The Government need to have the agility to be able to implement treaties in this way. The second word was “flexibility”, which partly comes down to the issue of speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was wrong when he said that these sort of treaties take forever and there is no rush to get them through. There is a rush to get them through. One example of where there is a need to get a treaty sorted out is the Singapore  mediation convention. It harms absolutely no one. All it does is make the decisions that are reached in mediation in countries that have signed the convention applicable anywhere around the world. It stops the enormously artificial process of having a mediation and then changing the mediators for another set of arbitrators, who then introduce the arbitration on exactly the same lines as the mediation in order for it to be caught by the New York convention, which is applicable around the world and which we have signed.
Understanding why we need to be quick with that treaty, which, as I say, does no harm, comes back to the visit that I and colleagues from both sides of the Houses made to Singapore earlier in the year. We have heard that many people see alternative dispute resolution as the way forward, but that is a complacent way of looking at the situation in the UK. The UK is not doing very well at maintaining itself as a global hub for alternative dispute resolution. The facilities available for conducting arbitration or mediation are far inferior to those that can be found in Singapore. If we sit around for much longer thinking that we can carry on being the global hub for this, we will lose that position very quickly and it will go to somebody else.
The techniques that we need to approve a major treaty are completely different from the sort of techniques that are needed to adopt a small treaty such as the Singapore mediation convention. We are speaking not about a new Maastricht treaty, but about treaties such as the Singapore mediation convention. We do not need an Act of Parliament for that; we need Ministers to get on with signing and implementing them as quickly as possible.
The Law Society has rather missed the point. It stresses the point that the effects of a treaty can have influence on domestic law, but it totally ignores the need for speed and it falls into the trap of complacency when it looks at the situation in the UK and the global role that we play. The House of Lords, when it looked at the measure and made its recommendations, also failed to recognise those points. I say again to the Minister that he needs to judge these amendments and new clauses according to whether they increase his agility and flexibility to get treaties such as the Singapore mediation convention signed and operational as quickly as possible.

Sarah Dines: It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Eleanor. As a relatively new Member of Parliament, it really is a joy to be speaking on this Bill. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a practising barrister for 30 years and for many of those years, I practised in these areas.
I am truly delighted to be speaking on this Bill in Committee. The very consideration of it is evidence that the transition period of our leaving the EU is coming to an end. For me, that is very welcome news. I support the propositions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who said that the Government need to be responsive, and there is a need for speed, agility and considered thought.
It is of course right that, prior to the end of the transition period, the UK takes steps to ensure continued participation in key agreements in its own right, at last as a free and independent trading nation. From 1 February, the UK has regained full competence to enter into this  sort of international agreement in the field in its own right. This is wonderful progress. As the UK develops its wider trading policy with the EU and the rest of the world, PIL agreements will be key to supporting cross-border commerce, which will be particularly important going forward. They will also regulate the very foundations of our society—how we deal with international family law matters—and build confidence for consumers as to how trade and disputes will be settled, all of which are very good things.
Cross-border commerce and trade are a vital part of life and UK businesses, individuals and families need to be able swiftly to settle cross-border disputes. International agreements on PIL are designed to help us: they provide that legal framework to resolve these difficult situations. These agreements will help us, as I know from my practice, to return children who have been abducted by one of their parents. They will also help a small business that has been left out of pocket by a supplier in another country to seek redress. Without these agreements, and without them being promptly brought into our law, families and businesses will be engaged in cross-border disputes that they will struggle to resolve. There are competing jurisdictions and competing processes, and it is very important that these matters are settled swiftly.
I have direct experience in my 30 years at the English Bar of just these types of disputes—far too many cases for me to go into in this short speech. The 1996 Hague convention is a well-known multilateral treaty aimed at improving the protection of children. It provides an important framework for the resolution of issues, such as residence and contact between separated parents who live in different countries. It is essential that we move swiftly on this, and this Bill allows us to do so and to move forward. Similarly, not to repeat too much of what my learned friends have said, the 2005 Hague convention is another multilateral treaty aimed, this time, at ensuring the effectiveness in relation to court agreements.
We really need to get this matter right. This is hugely important. It will contribute to London continuing to be a major legal and commercial centre in the world. It is important that we take considered, but swift, decisions. I hope that, in my term as a Member of Parliament, this place moves forward to be more responsible and more responsive to what its citizens need, rather than looking back at some of the lesser parts of our history. It is time to move on.
The 2007 Hague convention focused on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance. These are very important treaties and they need to be dealt with promptly. Again, I have been involved in many such cases at the Bar. It is essentially a good thing. By supporting this Bill, the House will help to ensure that civil, commercial and family law judgments will continue to be recognised and enforced across borders by our international partners. These agreements are likely to reduce costs for UK businesses, individuals and families involved in cross-border disputes while decreasing legal certainty for all—those travelling, those trading, those living, and those marrying and having families abroad. We do, of course, need to be agile and fast. We need to be considered. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley were spot on. Although I have great respect for my hon. Friends the  Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), I do not support the amendments that they have brought forward. There is another time for detailed consideration of CRaG. There is another time for detailed consideration of reform. We need to act now.
When preparing for this speech, I was interested to read what was said in the House of Lords in relation to clause 2. It was very interesting to listen to what the noble Lords said on 13 May 2020, I was fascinated by what Lord Falconer said. I will not repeat it all, but what I will say is that I have waited 30 years to be able to say this in this House: what a prime example of political and legal grandstanding. The main argument was that to use delegated legislation was effectively a power grab—a matter of constitutional impropriety. What utter nonsense. We must not forget that it was the Labour Government who agreed to the use of delegated powers in all sorts of manners. We cannot spend 24 hours a day, every day, going through each and every little thing because the Opposition parties want to bring forward primary legislation. I am a free marketeer, a partial libertarian, I think that we need less law. We need very well-honed, primed, proper law to deal with the situation in point.
There is nothing wrong with delegated legislation, for which we have a well-established scrutiny system. It is highly hypocritical for those opposing the Bill to object to the use of the DL in the other House when prior to our leaving the EU we had little or no say on the implementation of treaties—they were solely a matter of EU competence and as a nation we had little say. At least our own Ministers will be able to decide on these issues when exercising properly delegated legislation. I know which institution I have more trust in. It is the Ministers of this Government who are held to account in this Chamber, rather than those in the EU.
In conclusion, it is constitutionally appropriate and proportionate to use delegated powers to implement international agreements on PIL law in domestic law. Without such a power, things would be difficult. We simply are not able, and it is not appropriate, to bring in primary legislation each and every time. This is a measured, proportionate approach, and I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the Bill and opposing the amendments.

Jerome Mayhew: I cannot match the technical analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but I hope I can bring to today’s deliberations some practical experience of the implications of new clauses 2 and 5.
The honouring of agreements has been at the heart of international trade since such trade began, but it is worth remembering that Governments have not always supported international trade. If we look back at the approach of our Government and other Governments in Europe from the 16th and 17th centuries, and even well into the 18th century, we see that we operated mercantilist policies that actively prevented international trade. Such trade was discouraged to protect domestic manufacturing. Policies such as high border tariffs were implemented, and there were even export bans on tools that could be used to improve manufacturing in third countries. Many arcane rules and requirements to use local suppliers and local trades were implemented to make it harder to undertake international trade.
There was also no support for the legal enforcement of contracts. Consequently, businesses had to make their own arrangements, which were founded primarily on personal trust and the reputation of organisations and families. I have some personal experience: I was once recruited by my brother to work in his company, eventually as the managing director. His rationale was that he had no idea whether I was competent at anything but did know that I was unlikely to steal from him. I will leave it to other people to decide whether that was ultimately good for the economy of that business. On an international basis, that approach has been disastrous: throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries there was a general stultification of growth.
I am delighted to say that it was the United Kingdom that led the world away from narrow protectionism and towards free trade. That great man Adam Smith led the charge. He destroyed the argument for protectionism, demonstrating the desirability of imports—they are more efficiently produced and therefore cheaper—and stating that exports were merely the necessary cost of acquiring them. It was through this place that we led the way in the repeal of protectionist laws: first, with the Reciprocity of Duties Act back in 1823, and then much more famously with the repeal of the corn laws in 1846. What was the result? We see it if we look around us today: the explosion of world trade.
PIL agreements have been crucial to the modern support of international trade. They bring legal certainty, deal with conflicts of jurisdiction and allow for judgments to be enforced internationally. The Bill helps to achieve those aims, particularly as we transition from EU membership into the big wide world. That transition period, to which I shall come back later in my speech, is relevant because of the time constraints that it imposes on Her Majesty’s Government.
I want to return to my first-hand experience of the impact of PIL agreements. I was the managing director of a UK-based SME that was entrepreneurial in its outlook, and we were doing pretty well in the UK, so naturally I looked to international markets as a means for expansion. In my time, I negotiated joint ventures in Russia, the United States of America, Australia and South Africa, as well as undertaking preliminary discussions in a number of other jurisdictions. It was noticeable that the only two joint ventures that we progressed to fruition were those in the United States of America and Australia, and the fundamental reasons that I felt unable to progress further in those other jurisdictions were the fears over the enforceability of contracts, particularly in relation to intellectual property, and the fears over the effectiveness of the rule of law in those jurisdictions. PIL agreements affect countless such economic decisions all around the world and in this country every day, so we must not underestimate their importance for economic decisions just like the ones that I took.
There is an urgent need for more PIL agreements, particularly as we move out of the transition period. They are an integral part of our pivot towards global Britain, and there should be no unnecessary delay in the Government’s ability not only to negotiate such agreements but to bring them into force. International enforceability is key to trade growth and to London remaining the centre of dispute resolution around the world. It is also key to the continued dominance of English and Welsh law, and it is worth reminding ourselves that that law is  dominant because it is predictable in its interpretation and its enforceability. That is a key advantage for this jurisdiction.
I understand well the concerns that have been raised by old clause 2 and new clause 5. As a Back Bencher, I stand here to defend the rights of Parliament, but it is also right that I should do that with a sense of proportion. PIL agreements are significant—I have done my best to explain how significant they have been to international commerce—but they are fundamentally uncontroversial. They are not major treaties in the sense of Maastricht, which was mentioned by a previous speaker, and we need to have some practical considerations weighing on our mind as we decide whether we should implement new clause 5.
The transition period is a time when we should be lifting our eyes to the wider horizons of international trade, and that is going to mean many more PIL agreements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) highlighted, the Government’s agility, and their ability to strike while the iron is hot to take advantage of this brave new world into which we are entering, are material practical considerations. We also have the legislative timetable to consider. It is already clogged up with covid-related delays, and to require multiple Acts of Parliament to be progressed through that clogged-up timetable in order to progress time-sensitive and time-critical agreements would be disproportionate. It would create negative delay for the Government’s domestic agenda as they seek to progress this stodge, and delay for the implementation of the agreements themselves.
As a businessman and as a Back Bencher defending the rights of this Parliament, I operate with that sense of proportion, and my conclusion is that it would not be proportionate to prevent the Government from using secondary legislation in this manner. Consequently, I support the Government’s new clause 5 and I am against new clause 2.

Dehenna Davison: I rise today not as a lawyer, surprisingly—like many right hon. and hon. Members across the House—but merely as someone who has taken an interest in the Bill because I want the best for my constituents. I often joke that I am bilingual, because I can speak standard English and northerner, but I do not speak legalese, so Members may have to forgive me for a bit of plain speaking on this one.
New clause 5, which has been the subject of much discussion, effectively sets out the procedure by which international agreements on legal disputes are brought into UK law. The new clause would allow Ministers to implement treaties via an affirmative statutory instrument, rather than going through the full primary legislative process.
Some of my hon. Friends have expressed concerns about the impact of the Bill on parliamentary scrutiny. I assure colleagues that I firmly and fully believe in parliamentary scrutiny; last week, I was one of the signatories to the Brady amendment on the continuation of the Coronavirus Act 2020 for that very reason. However, I will make two key points. First, mechanisms for scrutiny already exist through CRaG and the affirmative statutory instruments procedure. That means that any statutory instruments laid would have to be actively  approved by both Houses before coming into force, and would also be examined by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Secondly, there is a finite amount of time available to us to debate matters in the House. As with many things in life, it is a matter of prioritisation. When I speak to Bishop Auckland residents, they want to know that Parliament is talking about the things that matter to them. Of course, to some, PIL treaties are highly important and at the top of their mind, but a vastly larger number of my constituents want to hear us talking about healthcare, education, crime and immigration—big picture stuff that has an impact right across society. If PIL treaties were subject to the full primary legislative process, there would be less time for those hugely important issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) was quite correct in outlining the complexity of the Bill and its amendments. Despite what I have just said about our constituents’ priorities, we also need to ensure that, despite its complexity, we do not lose sight of the tangible impact that the Bill could have on our constituents. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) for sharing his own experiences on that. If local Bishop Auckland companies that trade internationally, such as Equus Leather and Scott Leathers, were to enter into a dispute over, for example, unpaid invoices with a company from abroad, they would need to know how that legal process would work. We need to ensure that they are not dragged through UK courts and foreign courts, incurring all that additional cost, time and stress.
That is where PIL treaties come in. I firmly believe that Ministers need the freedom to make PIL treaties, knowing that they can be implemented into UK law quickly, to provide that protection for our businesses and individuals, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) when he spoke about the speed that is sometimes needed. Furthermore, we need to be able to move quickly to cement international agreements and preserve our reputation on the global stage. As my hon. Friend also said, we need to make the UK a global hub for international dispute resolution, so speed is critical.
As we leave the EU at the end of year, this is our opportunity to go out into the world and make international agreements that will make things better for our constituents. We must embrace that opportunity and strike while the iron is hot, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) rightly said, we do not need to lay primary legislation for every PIL agreement that our Ministers make. This is a proportionate Bill that allows us to protect our constituents, while new clause 5 ensures that in this Chamber, rather than seeing half-empty Benches bogged down by legalese and technical detail, we can continue to focus on the wider priorities of the people we are elected to serve.

Rob Butler: I rise to speak in support of new clause 5 in the name of the Minister, which, on balance, I believe would result in proportionate scrutiny for the measures that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Bill. The general points about the need for international agreements on private international law have been well rehearsed. Without such agreements, there would be a considerable impact on British businesses, individuals and families who are engaged in cross-border litigation. Indeed, it is not inconceivable to foresee a  situation where parallel judgments by different courts contradict each other, resulting in legal limbo with little hope of redress and no hope of justice.
That is perhaps particularly evident in the case of custody disputes, where a child has been abducted and taken outside the UK by one parent. Right hon. and hon. Members across the House are no doubt all too aware of examples of such cases. Sadly, that pain has been felt by families in my own constituency of Aylesbury. If we compound that heart-wrenching situation with a quagmire of legal process in different jurisdictions, with no mutual recognition of judgments, desperation becomes hopelessness, and loving parents risk permanent separation from their children.
Less emotional, but equally important, is the plight of small British businesses seeking redress from an overseas supplier or customer. Buckinghamshire has more microbusinesses than any other county in the country. There are small firms that need the law to be simple and straightforward, so that they can focus on what they do best—producing goods and services that generate wealth and taxes—safe in the knowledge that the judicial system is there to protect them.
New clause 5 seeks to use delegated legislation to ensure that any future agreements concerning international private law are speedily implemented, thus benefiting individuals, families and businesses in the ways I have described. Parliamentary scrutiny will exist through the affirmative process, and what is more, it will be prompt. That seems to be appropriate and proportionate. Insisting on primary legislation to bring such new agreements into effect is disproportionate and unnecessary, not least because of the likely challenges of finding parliamentary time for what, as other Members have said, are unlikely to be matters of huge controversy. When international private law agreements were in the competency of the European Union, they were implemented by direct effect. Once the transition period is over, Members of this House will be able to scrutinise and vote on such agreements, bringing power back to Parliament through the DL procedure.
I am rather surprised by some of the opposition to new clause 5, both from Opposition Members and from the other place, because what is proposed today is not novel. There is precedent for the Government’s proposed course of action, and precedent is not to be lightly dismissed. Indeed, in justifying the decision of one of Mr Speaker’s illustrious predecessors, Erskine May said that he had
“found what convinces the House of Commons more readily than any argument—I have found a precedent”.
Several Acts passed in this place contain delegated powers concerning international private law. The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 contains delegated powers allowing decisions to be made by Order in Council. The same is true in family law relating to the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 using the same mechanism. I therefore support the Government’s desire to introduce new clause 5 and hope that Members of the other place will feel able to take the opportunity afforded them of a second chance to consider the implications of their earlier action.
As we conclude the transition period from leaving the EU, I want the UK to be a country where we focus on getting deals done, where we support our businesses to  trade and where we strive to protect our citizens’ rights in a way that is straightforward and fair. I have had countless emails from constituent businesses asking me to ensure that they can run as smoothly as possible after the transition period. I have not had one single email from a constituent business demanding primary legislation for every single commercial agreement that is made in future—that is not a cue to 38 Degrees to start such a campaign.
I want us to be agile in the way we respond to opportunities from our friends and partners overseas and able to follow up an agreement made in person with swift delivery of parliamentary scrutiny in proportionate form that enables us to implement a deal and reap the benefits in short order. Businesses in my constituency of Aylesbury are hungry for the opportunities that await us on the international markets. They want Parliament to pave the way for them to bring greater prosperity to our country. Let us do that with new clause 5.

Owen Thompson: I rise to speak in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and myself. As other Members have said, there is a degree of consistency across a number of the amendments on the selection paper.
I welcome the action to enhance transnational co-operation. For once, instead of measures that seek to breach international agreements or upset international partners, this is a step in the right direction and a move that I hope we will see reflected in other bits of legislation that the Government bring forward.
I wish that this Bill was not necessary, but, having left the European framework, it is essential that we make alternative arrangements to ensure that the three Hague conventions still apply, to prevent Scottish businesses and families from being disadvantaged. The conventions add legal certainty for parties to cross-border commercial contracts, and they help with family maintenance decisions across borders and the protection of children in disputes where parents have separated but live in different countries. These conventions may be technical, but they are very practical for those caught in difficult and tangled situations. There is therefore a clear need to replace the previous mechanisms whereby the EU reached agreements on these types of cross-border disputes on behalf of member states.
Aspects of this legislation fall within the devolved competencies, forming parts of Scots private law relating to choice of jurisdiction, recognition of judgments and enforcement of decisions. The Bill, if passed, will provide reassurances, in particular, to those affected by cross-border family support and custodial mechanisms, so we are keen to see that move forward. The Scottish Government have considered the aspects that require a legislative consent motion under section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 and will seek consent from the Scottish Parliament to allow agreement to the Bill. The Bill has been drafted with great respect for devolution and, again, I very much welcome that. It is the proper and democratic way to proceed. It is a great pity that that is not always the case with this Government, but certainly it is very much to be welcomed in this case.
I speak in favour of the amendments proposed by myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West. I pay tribute and give thanks to  the Law Society of Scotland, which has supported us in the drafting of them. Amendment 10 has a particular focus on the Lugano convention, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has already told us of the significance of the need to put the mechanism in place and of having it on the face of the Bill. Given the Government’s confirmation that they are intent on continuing with the convention, putting it on the face of the Bill would be a proper and appropriate way of doing that. The convention created common rules across the EU and EFTA, avoiding multiple court cases taking place on the same subject and saving the costs of all those involved. I welcome the steps taken.
The regrettable decision not to be part of the single market may yet come back to hit us. However, we are where we are, and if the UK joining the convention in its own right is accepted by 31 December, we will need to work quickly to introduce a simple mechanism to implement the convention. That is what the amendment from me and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West seeks to achieve, and I argue that the Government should amend the Bill to provide for a regulation-making power focused specifically on the implementation of the Lugano convention. That point is not being made just by Scottish National party Members; it is reflected on all sides of the House. That, in itself, speaks volumes.
It is important to note that that move would not preclude us from reinstating the previous regulation-making powers under clause 2 that were removed from the Bill during its passage in the other place. As was said earlier, that debate raised legitimate concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation, and I strongly suggest that the Government strongly reflect on that when seeking to reintroduce those powers.
The Bill fulfils a commitment in the political declaration between the UK and the EU, and I recognise that. I certainly welcome the fact that in this situation at least the Government appear to be looking to keep their promise and to keep private international law clear after the transition. As a proud internationalist, I welcome any measures that will continue to help to support and facilitate cross-border co-operation.

David Lammy: On Second Reading, the official Opposition made it clear that they would oppose any attempts by the Government to reintroduce clause 2, which was removed by a majority in the other place. On Second Reading, numerous Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches made very sensible suggestions on how the Government could modify clause 2 and harness cross-party support. Sunset clauses, placing Lugano on the face of the Bill, as has been suggested by Members across the House this afternoon, and limiting the power of clause 2 were all among the suggestions discussed. Very sadly, the Government did not listen. That is surprising, particularly for this Minister, who is known to be attentive and a very able lawyer indeed.
The Government did not listen to the reasonable concerns voiced by the Chair of the Justice Committee, who, in his usual manner, made a moderate, sensible and clearly legally articulate speech, or to the concerns of the country’s most pre-eminent legal minds in the  other place. They did not listen to the House of Lords Constitution Committee or to members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which considered whether the powers contained in clause 2 should stand, and was frankly unanimous that the powers should not stand. They did not listen to the concerns of the Bar Council of England and Wales, the Law Society of England and Wales or the Law Society of Scotland. It is a great shame, therefore, that the Government have sought to reintroduce the exact same clause 2 in the shape of new clause 5, and the Labour party will keep its word and vote against new clause 5 today, if it remains in its current form.
The Lord Chancellor explained on Second Reading that the rationale for clause 2 was to ensure that the 2007 Lugano convention could be implemented swiftly and before the end of the transition period. That is a perfectly reasonable ambition. As we have heard, the Lugano convention is vital to ensuring that cross-border judgments can be enforced, and there is indeed a pressing need to implement it before the end of the transition period, but there is a question as to how.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made a very good speech and his amendments go to the issue of the arrangements that we should have, particularly in relation to CRaG, as have been supported by the Chair of the Justice Committee. Even though those amendments are not in my name, I endorse what has been said; we do have to have architecture that is fit for purpose in the 21st century, and certainly architecture and scrutiny powers that befit the sixth biggest economy in the world and are as good as those in countries with which we would seek to have trade deals and private international agreements. But that is not the case. No one could argue that an arrangement set up in 1924 is fit for purpose. I support those remarks.
I turn to the amendments in my name and the name of the leader of the Labour party. Amendment (a) to new clause 5 would specifically allow new clause 5 to implement the Lugano convention. Similar amendments have been tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee and by the Scottish National party. Each of those amendments would allow the Government to carry out their stated aim of implementing the Lugano convention without granting the Government sweeping Henry VIII powers and the ability to sideline Parliament. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), that he does not look like Henry VIII; nor, I suspect—when I recall the history books—does he have the manner of Henry VIII. Why, then, does he need these powers, which I fear he will rise to his feet to suggest he must have?
Of course, the Government have the other option, which is to add the Lugano convention to clause 1, which would allow them to implement it in domestic law as soon as the Bill is passed. As we set out on Second Reading, we have no objection to the important international agreements in clause 1 being incorporated into domestic law in the proper way—by primary legislation that is debated on the Floor of the House. We would have no objection to the Lugano convention being added to that list. If the genuine intention behind new clause 5 is to implement the Lugano convention, I look forward to the Government accepting Labour’s amendment (a) or  one of the similar amendments, although we have to ask ourselves whether that is really the Government’s intention.
That brings me to Labour’s final amendment to new clause 5, amendment (e). Labour is concerned about the inclusion of new clause 5 because it represents a hugely significant change in the balance of power away from Parliament and to the Executive. New clause 5 would erase the convention that international legal agreements that change our domestic law can only be given force by an Act of Parliament. Instead, this Parliament will allow them to be implemented without any parliamentary scrutiny at all. We on the Labour Benches agree with the Constitution Committee, when it said:
“If the balance between the executive and Parliament is to be altered in respect of international agreements, it should be in favour of greater parliamentary scrutiny and not more executive power.”
We heard from the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), who spoke about her experience as a barrister for 30 years. There has been much debate in this Chamber about exiting the European Union, but the primary objective was to bring sovereignty back to this Parliament. That is why we did it. Why, then, are we having a debate today about taking that sovereignty away from this Parliament and giving it to the Executive? That is not the way things have traditionally worked in our country.
I am straining a bit to think of those private international law modules that I and several other Members took. It was not my favourite area of law, but I do not recall it being vaguely contentious in a partisan or political way. It was contentious sometimes for the parties involved, particularly in areas of child abduction or domestic affairs, and it can be very important economically for businesses in dispute, but I struggle to recall it being a partisan debate between political opponents.
It is rather peculiar therefore that yet again I find myself at this Dispatch Box representing the Labour party as the conservative in this Chamber—it is perhaps why I chose to wear my blue tie this afternoon—arguing for law as we have traditionally had it. I look forward to the radical speech that will follow from the Minister.
As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to exercise extreme caution when considering measures that change our constitution, particularly at times when the Executive are empowered and Parliament is weakened. As we have seen in recent months, the Government have shown a disturbing over-reliance on using secondary legislation to bypass Parliament, as well as to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Giving effect to broad international treaties in domestic law should never be a rubber stamp exercise, and it is vital that Parliament has a say. That is why we tabled amendment (e), which would ensure that any international agreement the Government wish to implement by secondary legislation must be subject to a super-affirmative resolution procedure before Parliament.
Let me be clear on one point: the Labour party would much prefer that all international agreements were implemented by primary legislation, but we are also pragmatic. We recognise that, with the end of the transition period quickly approaching, the Government must move at pace to ensure that legislation is in place. The amendment would ensure that international agreements could be implemented by secondary legislation, but that Parliament would still be given a crucial chance to scrutinise the  secondary legislation that flows and, further, to make recommendations to the Government. We believe that to be a wholly reasonable proposal that reflects the legislative difficulties posed by Brexit while also protecting the primacy of Parliament, and that is why, if the Government believe in the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, they should accept the amendment. After all, it would appear strange for a Government so keen to take back control with regard to leaving the European Union to be reluctant to allow our own Parliament to scrutinise the legislation relating to that departure.
We believe that the Labour amendments to new clause 5 provide the Government with a constructive and reasonable approach. The amendments allow the Government to achieve the objective they claim is behind new clause 5: to implement the Lugano convention while also protecting parliamentary scrutiny. Nothing in these amendments, or any of the other amendments, hinders the Government in their stated aim. Indeed, they serve no other purpose than to protect parliamentary scrutiny. If the Government vote against them, they will be voting for, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon quite rightly said, one of the largest potential power-grabs ever seen by the Executive in this Parliament. I hope that this Government do the right thing and show that they do indeed value the role of the House and the role and value of parliamentary scrutiny.

Alex Chalk: It was a great pleasure to listen to the powerful advocacy of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Unfortunately, on this occasion, I am unable to agree with him, but out of courtesy to him I will explain why.
It is a real pleasure to address the Committee of the Whole House on a Bill which, while technical, is of great importance. Private international law is not just an arcane and abstract legal construct. As my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) and for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), among others, have indicated, it is a very real framework for the dispute resolution of cross-border civil and family justice matters that affect families and businesses in our country. Indeed, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) made the point that every time we enter into one of these agreements we strengthen the international rules-based order. That is a point we should not lose sight of either.
I am very grateful for the quality of the debate that we have witnessed today, as well as on Second Reading. It has been, if I may say in all sincerity, a debate of conspicuous clarity and ability. I really do appreciate the interest that has been shown in these important matters. I thank colleagues from across the Committee for the time they have taken to prepare the amendments and for the explanations that they have provided. Even where the Government take a different view—which, as I say, I will come on to explain—I recognise that these are serious amendments that have been tabled in good faith in an endeavour to improve the legislation.
Let me begin, if I may, by turning to amendments 5 and 6, new clause 5, new schedule 4 and amendment 7. Taken together, these amendments, in effect, restore the implementing power that was deleted in the other place and reverse the consequential amendments that flow from their deletion. The ability to be able to implement PIL  agreements in a timely and effective manner is important. One of the things that really shone out from the excellent contributions that we heard was the word “agility”, which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales in referring to the context of family agreements, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) in talking about the Singapore mediation agreement. That agility is important. It is what allows the UK to be a credible negotiating counterparty, so that if British Ministers agree a PIL agreement—which, incidentally, strengthens the international rules-based order—it can be brought into effect in an agile way.
If indeed, as we all appear to accept, such agreements are good for citizens and businesses, we want to make sure that there is no undue delay in rolling out those benefits. There is a public interest in ensuring that implementation and scrutiny mechanisms are proportionate—again, a word that shone out from the contributions we have heard—in striking the important balance between timely implementation and appropriate scrutiny. If I may make one point about the contribution by the right hon. Member for Tottenham, I think it is fair to say that he did not dwell particularly on the scrutiny procedures that are in place. I will develop that a little bit, and I hope that will put his mind at rest. I do not suppose that I will be able to get him to join us on the Government Benches, but I live in hope.
The provisions are necessary and proportionate because the agreements are recognised across the House as manifestly in the public interest. If I may say respectfully to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), one of the principal points he made actually, I suggest, undermined his argument. He said, “These are very rarely party political.” The right hon. Member for Tottenham said, “I don’t recall it being vaguely contentious.” He is absolutely right. These agreements are not contentious.
Indeed, if we look at the previous Lugano convention in 2007, or at the previous Hague conventions, which we are introducing under clause 1, nobody ever prayed against them. Equally, on the old Lugano convention—the 1988 one, which preceded the 2007 one—I think only three of their lordships spoke in the other place, there were no amendments and nothing was said here. We must ask ourselves: if my hon. Friends accept that this is non-contentious, why go for what might be perceived to be the disproportionate step?

Jonathan Djanogly: I intervene only because the Minister suggested that I said something. I may have said that this is not party political, but that does not mean to say that it is not important, complicated and potentially contentious—but not for party political reasons.

Alex Chalk: But ultimately, my hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. If we accept that it is not contentious, it is important that the mechanisms that are in place are proportionate to that. Indeed, the Opposition knew this when they were in government, because of course all these rule-making powers were on the statute book and they did not repeal them. There was the Administration of Justice Act 1920, the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, the Maintenance Orders  (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972—I could go on. They stayed on the statute book because they are not really offensive to the constitutional balance that we enjoy, but not only were they not repealed; they were used.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham knows that because he was the Minister at the time. He was Minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs when the British Government used the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 to bring into force an international agreement with who? With Israel. He knows that because he was the Minister at the time. Who was the Lord Chancellor at the time? Lord Falconer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot very well say that these are a monstrous and egregious affront to our constitution when they were used, because they were used a second time in 2007. They created a power to give effect to bilateral agreements with the United States on reciprocal enforcement of family maintenance orders.
Just to complete that point, not only were those powers used; the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect, created new ones of his own. In 2005—[Interruption.] He is laughing, but he knows it is true. He was the Bill Minister on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which, incidentally, on this very rainy weekend I had a chance to re-read. That Act created a wide delegated power to introduce international agreements in that area.
I do not want to labour this point too much, but I had a chance to look at proceedings in Committee on that Bill, during which a Conservative hon. Member talked about that specific power and effectively asked the right hon. Gentleman, “Is he sure that he wants to do this?” He added:
“Those in another place get very excited about any sort of Henry VIII clause.”
The right hon. Gentleman responded, effectively, “Don’t worry,” saying that
“they are technical and necessary provisions.”––[Official Report, Mental Capacity Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2004; c. 406-407.]
Is not that precisely the point? What was technical and necessary when he was in government has now become an egregious affront to our constitution.

David Lammy: The very able Minister has put his argument, but I remind him that under the previous Labour Government, we were in the European Union. This debate is about being outside it, and the best architecture for scrutiny in this House in those circumstances.

Alex Chalk: But the point is that when we were in the European Union and the European Union had competence to enter into PIL agreements, those would be brought into effect in the United Kingdom via the doctrine of direct effect. What role did this Parliament have? None. We are seeking to introduce much more by way of parliamentary scrutiny—the points, respectfully, that the right hon. Gentleman did not advert to. First, there is the CRaG procedure, and secondly there is the affirmative procedure.
I am at pains to mention that because I talked just a few moments ago about the Israeli agreement and the United States agreement. How did those come into force? Not through the affirmative procedure, not even through the negative procedure, but through an Order in Council. In other words, normal hon. Members—mere  mortals like most of the people in the Chamber—had no say at all; just Privy Counsellors. We therefore respectfully say that it does not lie in the mouth of the Opposition to raise these concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) made the point powerfully that this precedent, which the Opposition understood when they were in government, recognises that there is an opportunity cost. If we start filling up the parliamentary timetable with such legislation, which everyone accepts is not controversial, there is less time and less space for schools, hospitals and transport, etc.
On the point about criminal offences, which was made powerfully by the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), this is an area where it is important to move cautiously. We will continue to reflect on the range of views expressed. I agree with him that an awful lot of offences are created by statutory instruments, but we need to take care, none the less.

Bob Neill: I am grateful for the Minister’s observations in relation to criminal offences, and I will take him at his word as far as that is concerned. I know that he will want to take away, perhaps, how we deal with that proportionately.
The Minister refers to the value of the affirmative procedure, as is proposed. That, of course, is used when the PIL treaty first comes into force in our domestic law, but often these treaties or agreements can be modified as they go along. Can he help me with the concerns raised by the Bar Council and the Law Society about how the proposed scrutiny regime would deal with, for example, declarations that are attached to international agreements when we bring them into force? Such declarations can sometimes modify or limit their scope. Secondly, how will we deal with model laws, which are now often used in international trade negotiations?

Alex Chalk: If I may respectfully say so, that is an excellent point. That is one of the reasons why we seek to frame things this way, because one of the points my hon. Friend made most powerfully is that there are shortcomings in the Lugano convention. He talked about the Italian torpedo, but there are others, some of which Lord Mance referred to in the other place, for example.
How are we to be expected, in an agile and proportionate way, to address those changes, supposing they are negotiated, if we effectively have to have a new Act of Parliament each time? With respect, that would be wildly disproportionate. It would clog up this place unnecessarily, because there may be very good opportunities to improve those agreements and get them on to the statute book.
Let me deal with this business about Lugano, in amendments 1 to 4, 8 and 9, new clauses 1 and 2, new schedule 1, new schedule 3, new clause 5 and amendments (a) to (g). First, it is premature to put Lugano into the Bill while our application is outstanding, even if amendment 2 specifically includes reference to this being contingent on the UK’s accession. It is also inadequate—this is the point I was adverting to—as additional provisions will be required, mostly of a procedural or consequential nature, to properly implement to Lugano convention into domestic law.
For example, the civil procedure rules might need to be changed. What if Lugano is improved, as I indicated? What, also, if our application is unsuccessful? We may then need to move quickly. With whom will we want to move quickly? As my hon. Friend well knows, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have published statements of support for our Lugano application, and that may be a route we would want to go down.
The most important point is that we have, and indeed should have, ambitions beyond Lugano. We must stay at the forefront of developments, whether the Singapore convention on mediation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) powerfully referred to, or the Hague convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters, also known as Hague ’19.
I advert to the fact that the Bill properly complies with the devolution settlement. We take that extremely seriously. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) indicated, both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have passed legislative consent motions for the Bill, and the Welsh Government have agreed that an LCM is not required as PIL is almost entirely reserved. There is a small exclusion for Cafcass Cymru, but that is really it.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham spoke about the super-affirmative procedure, and I accept this amendment was submitted in the spirit of trying to be helpful. I entirely acknowledge that. These proposals are contained within paragraph 4 of new schedule 3, tabled by the Opposition, and there is a similar proposal in new schedule 2, although the SNP new schedule would introduce a super-affirmative scrutiny power only for Lugano. I respectfully make the point, and I appreciate that this is to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but why would we need a super-affirmative scrutiny power for Lugano, which we have been operating for years? That is not very obvious to me.
The bar for the super-affirmative scrutiny procedure has always been high. Let us look at the context. Section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for a super-affirmative procedure for regulations that deal with changes to reserved matters as set out in that Act. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides for such a procedure for remedial orders that deal with legislation that has been found to be incompatible—declarations of incompatibility. Under the Public Bodies Act 2011, a super-affirmative procedure is needed for orders that abolish, merge or change the constitutional funding arrangements. I dealt with those quickly, but the point is that super-affirmative procedure is reserved for matters of key constitutional importance. We must not forget that in the case we are discussing, we have the additional CRaG brake.
If we drill into the detail of super-affirmative procedure, it creates additional stages, but I query whether it results in improvements to the proposed regulations. Instead, it simply delays. It would also create a potential discrepancy between England and Wales and the devolved jurisdictions. One could easily imagine a situation whereby two litigants lived five miles either side of the border and the cases were dealt with differently, to the disadvantage of a litigant in England, because the Scottish Parliament had got on with it and simply brought an agreement into force. That would be unsatisfactory. I do not suggest that that is what the right hon. Member for Tottenham intends, but I fear it could be a consequence.
New clauses 1, 6 and 7 deal with laying the report. New clause 6 would require a report to be laid in Parliament before the UK ratifies an agreement. New clause 7 would require the Government to lay a report in Parliament for 10 House of Commons sitting days before a draft statutory instrument was laid. I accept the need for clear and detailed explanations, but it is not immediately obvious that new clause 7 would add anything to the current process. All SIs are already accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. I dug one out to prepare for the debate. It deals with the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. It runs to 18 pages and is very detailed and helpful. Other than requiring the information 10 days earlier, I cannot see that new clause 7 would make a difference. We should not forget that an SI is typically laid several weeks before the House gets to debate it. None the less, I accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made about the need to reach out to distinguished practitioners and jurists. It is right that we should do that, and I am keen for that happen.
I am very grateful for the consideration of the Bill in Committee. I share the desire to ensure that PIL agreements that we wish to join and domestically implement are appropriately scrutinised. All Governments must balance the need for scrutiny with the need to move in a timely manner to ensure that British citizens can enjoy the benefits of PIL agreements as soon as it is properly possible to provide for them. Those benefits are significant, and if the House gets the balance wrong, our citizens will be denied them by an unnecessarily labyrinthine process.
The proposed procedures provide for scrutiny of a delegated power using an affirmative SI together with the CRaG procedure to implement the agreements. That is a balanced and proportionate approach.

Bob Neill: Before the Minister sits down—

Alex Chalk: Just in the nick of time.

Bob Neill: Perhaps the Minister can help my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and me. I understand what the Minister is saying, and none of us wishes to create a labyrinthine process. Does he accept that it may be necessary to learn from experience with CRaG as we go forward? Are the Government closing their mind to the idea that we could seek refinements and improvements to the CRaG process as we operate it? The answer might help us.

Alex Chalk: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. There is no doubt that the CRaG process is evolving and maturing. Proper points have been made about the need to consider it and how it should evolve over time. I certainly do not want to shut my eyes or my ears to my hon. Friend’s proposals.
The Bill takes a balanced and proportionate approach. I therefore invite hon. Members to support the Government amendments and reject the remainder.

Jonathan Djanogly: The debate has been interesting and gone some way towards creating a more common understanding of the important issues at stake, the balance between efficient process and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and why, as I have argued, we  need a more modern process of scrutiny for PIL treaties as much as for the ministerial orders that are derived from them.
We have had many great contributions today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) explained why these treaties, particularly Lugano, are so important to a wide variety of people, and are not just techie stuff for lawyers. He also explained very well why we need proper scrutiny provisions, and raised the important point that we need to use the best expertise that we have available when we are determining these orders.
A variety of points were made. In fact, the same points were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). I think they all used the same phrase—that we need agility, flexibility and speed in the way that we approach these orders.
I do not necessarily see the amendment that I tabled today affecting any of those in a negative way. Indeed, I made the point that our opposite treaty partners generally have more stringent scrutiny provisions than we do, and they are not complaining about the lack of time. I was sorry, in that regard, that it was the Government’s approach to want to bring back new clause 5 rather than amend it—I will come back to that—but I did take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and others, on the importance of London as an international legal centre and the importance of these treaties for commerce.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland noted the tangible impact for her constituents and their concerns about clogging up; I believe I have addressed those. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said that there was a precedent for what the Government propose, and the Minister made the same point. I do not deny that, but I would say that what was used, and what was acceptable, in the 1930s—or in the 1970s, the other example given—is not necessarily best practice now, and indeed is definitely not the current practice of Japan, the US or the EU. They all have much more developed processes than we have. Even the other Commonwealth countries, which, as I said, have our constitutional position, in practice have much more developed scrutiny measures than we have.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) explained very well that the approach being taken around the House has been pretty much the same in terms of what we want to see going back to the Lords. We have heard the Minister, and unfortunately it is a case of clause 2—or new clause 5—back with no amendments. I still do not understand the Government’s approach. It would have been good if this debate had happened at the final stages in the other place. Instead there was a polarised approach there. Throughout, the other place threw the order-making clause out altogether, leaving us to pick up the pieces. Sadly, we have failed to do so today, and now the Bill goes back to the other place in a situation where we should be agreeing this stuff, frankly. In this context, amendment 2 to include the Lugano treaty is good to have, but that is not the key issue at stake here, and as such I do not intend to request a Division on amendment 2 today. The Opposition are  now saying again that they want the Government’s amendment to be thrown out rather than amended; I cannot support that approach either.
I end with a plea to the Minister. I hope that, as we take the Bill back to the other place, we can move away from this polarised position and come to a deal that enables us all to move forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - CROWN APPLICATION

Amendment made: 5, page2,line28,insert—
“(2) Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) may make provision binding the Crown.
(3) The reference to the Crown in subsection (2) does not include—
(a) Her Majesty in Her private capacity,
(b) Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, or
(c) the Duke of Cornwall.”—(Alex Chalk.)
This amendment provides that regulations made under NC5 may make provision binding the Crown.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - EXTENT, COMMENCEMENT AND  SHORT TITLE

Amendment made: 6,page2,line30,at end insert—
“(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) (including Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law))) and section 2(2) and (3) to extend, with or without modifications, to the Isle of Man.”—(Alex Chalk.)
This amendment inserts a new subsection into Clause 3. This allows Her Majesty by Order in Council to extend to the Isle of Man NC5 (including NS4) and subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 inserted by Amendment 5.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 5 - IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER AGREEMENTS ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (NO. 3)

“(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, as it has effect from time to time, so far as relating to private international law (a “relevant international agreement”).
(2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.
(3) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, giving effect to any arrangements made between—
(a) Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the government of a relevant territory,
for applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between the United Kingdom, or a jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, and that territory.
(4) Regulations under this section may make—
(a) consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes or for different parts of the United Kingdom.
(5) Regulations under this section may include provision about—
(a) enforcement of obligations arising under or by virtue of the regulations;
(b) sharing of information;
(c) legal aid.
(6) Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))) makes further provision about regulations under this section.
(7) In this section—
“appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Scotland—
(i) the Scottish Ministers, or
(ii) the Secretary of State acting with the consent of the Scottish Ministers;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland—
(i) a Northern Ireland department, or
(ii) the Secretary of State acting with the consent of a Northern Ireland department
“international agreement” means a convention, treaty or other agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party;
“private international law” includes rules and other provisions about—
(a) jurisdiction and applicable law;
(b) recognition and enforcement in one country or territory of any of the following that originate in another country or territory—
(i) a judgment, order or arbitral award;
(ii) an agreement, decision or authentic instrument determining or otherwise relating to rights and obligations;
(c) co-operation between judicial or other authorities in different countries or territories in relation to—
(i) service of documents, taking of evidence and other procedures, or
(ii) anything within paragraph (a) or (b);
“relevant international agreement” has the meaning given in subsection (1);
“relevant territory” means—
(a) the Isle of Man;
(b) any of the Channel Islands;
(c) a British overseas territory.
(8) This section and Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))) have effect, with the following modifications, in relation to a model law adopted by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member as it has effect in relation to an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party.
The modifications are—
(a) a reference in this section or that Schedule to implementing or applying a relevant international agreement is to be read as a reference to giving effect to the model law (with or without modifications);
(b) subsection (1) is to be read as if the words “as revised from time to time” were substituted for the words “as it has effect from time to time”.”—(Alex Chalk.)
This new clause contains a power to implement international agreements relating to private international law.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 324, Noes 175.
Question accordingly agreed to.
New clause 5 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

New Schedule 4 - Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))

Restrictions on power to make regulations
1 (1) Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) may not include—
(a) provision that confers power to legislate by means of regulations, orders, rules or other subordinate instrument (other than rules of procedure for courts or tribunals);
(b) provision that creates an offence for which an individual who has reached the age of 18 (or, in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland, 21) is capable of being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two years (ignoring any enactment prohibiting or restricting the imprisonment of individuals who have no previous convictions).
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not prevent the modification of a power to legislate conferred otherwise than under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)), or the extension of any such power to purposes of a similar kind to those for which it was conferred.
(3) A power to give practice directions or other directions regarding matters of administration is not a power to legislate for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a).
Regulations to be made by statutory instrument or statutory rule
2 The power to make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))—
(a) is exercisable by statutory instrument, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)), in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department.
Parliamentary or assembly procedure
3 (1) This paragraph applies to a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)).
(2) If the instrument contains (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) provision made for the purpose of implementing or applying, in relation to the United Kingdom or a particular part of the United Kingdom, any relevant international agreement that has not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) or otherwise),
(b) provision made for the purpose of giving effect, in relation to the United Kingdom or a particular part of the United Kingdom, to any relevant arrangements that relate to a particular territory and have not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under that section or otherwise),
(c) provision that creates or extends, or increases the penalty for, a criminal offence, or
(d) provision that amends primary legislation,
it may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(3) In this Schedule “relevant arrangements” means arrangements of the kind mentioned in section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))(3).
(4) If sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to the instrument, it is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
4 (1) This paragraph applies to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)).
(2) The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010) (asp 10)) if they contain (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) provision made for the purpose of implementing or applying, in relation to Scotland, any relevant international agreement that has not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) or otherwise),
(b) provision made for the purpose of giving effect, in relation to Scotland, to any relevant arrangements that relate to a particular territory and have not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under that section or otherwise),
(c) provision that creates or extends, or increases the penalty for, a criminal offence, or
(d) provision that amends primary legislation.
(3) If sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to the regulations, they are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).
5 (1) A Northern Ireland department may not make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) that contain (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) provision made for the purpose of implementing or applying, in relation to Northern Ireland, any relevant international agreement that has not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) or otherwise),
(b) provision made for the purpose of giving effect, in relation to Northern Ireland, to any relevant arrangements that relate to a particular territory and have not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under that section or otherwise),
(c) provision that creates or extends, or increases the penalty for, a criminal offence, or
(d) provision that amends primary legislation,
unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.
(2) Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) made by a Northern Ireland department are subject to negative resolution, within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, if a draft of the regulations was not required to be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.
(3) Section 41(3) of that Act applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) in relation to the laying of a draft as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment.
Interpretation
6 In this Schedule—
“amend” includes repeal or revoke;
“primary legislation” means any provision of—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“relevant arrangements” has the meaning given in paragraph 3(3);
“relevant international agreement” has the same meaning as in section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No.3)).”—(Alex Chalk.)
This new schedule makes further provision about regulations made under NC5.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Amendment made: 7, in title, line 1 at end insert
“and to provide for the implementation of other international agreements on private international law.”—(Alex Chalk.)
This amendment to the long title reflects the change to the Bill made by NC5.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Third Reading

Alex Chalk: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me start by thanking all the right hon, hon. and , in particular, learned Members from all parts of the House for their careful scrutiny of the Bill at each stage of its passage. A variety of opinions have been expressed, and I value all the contributions made on these important issues. We have been fortunate, throughout the passage of this Bill, that the debates have been genuinely enriched by the experience and expertise of the speakers, both in this House and in the other place. One thing that has been raised time and again from all involved is an acknowledgement of the importance of private international law and the real-world impact it can have on our constituents.
I have to accept that historically that acknowledgement has not always been in place. A former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, who introduced a key piece of private international law legislation, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill, into the House of Lords in 1981 opened the Second Reading debate by saying:
“I rather feel that it should be accompanied by a Government health warning. There is nothing whatever that I can do to make my speech short, and those who expect to find it of throbbing human interest will, I fear, be wholly disappointed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 1981; Vol. 425, c. 1126.]
But of course we know in this House that this is extremely important. Reciprocal private international law rules provide a framework to enable UK businesses, families and individuals to resolve their difficult and challenging situations. They help to avoid confusion for all parties, by preventing multiple court cases from taking place in different countries on the same subject and reaching potentially different conclusions. Such reciprocal rules also allow for the decisions of UK courts to be recognised and enforced across borders. All of this helps to reduce costs and anxiety for the parties involved. It is therefore vital that in future our country is able not only to continue to co-operate on private international law matters with existing partners, but to implement in our domestic law new agreements that are fit for the 21st century.
The Bill underpins our ambition to deliver real and tangible benefits for the United Kingdom—for our citizens—both now and in the years to come. I reassure Members on a point that I know they realise but that can never be emphasised enough: although private international law can support and underpin cross-border trade, the Bill is not about the implementation of free trade agreements. The terms on which trade between two countries takes place are clearly outside the scope of the Bill.
Over the next few years, we face the challenge of replacing and updating the UK’s private international law framework, recognising our regained competence in this area of law. Although we have not yet agreed, as between this House and the other place, on how best to scrutinise future agreements, I am now confident that there is an eagerness to do so effectively. That eagerness recognises the overwhelming public interest of such agreements.
More broadly, I am pleased that, whatever the outcome of ping-pong, we will have in place legislation that allows the UK to realise the future opportunities in this  area of law. I think all parties in this House are agreed not only that we want the UK to remain at the forefront of delivering justice internationally and to ensure that our legal services sector continues to flourish, but that we want to ensure that we are at the forefront of the international rules-based order—we want to see it strengthened and we want to play our part.
I conclude simply by thanking all Members for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Lammy: I join the Minister in thanking colleagues from all parties for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. I especially thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for their eminently reasonable suggestions on how the Bill could secure cross-party support.
On Second Reading, Labour made it clear that we supported the fundamental principle behind the Bill. The Opposition fully accept that as we leave the largest network of private international law agreements in the world, we must have a legislative framework in place to replace it. As we leave the European Union, we must protect our country’s proud reputation as the international forum of choice for the resolution of commercial and legal disputes.
We should also remember the human aspects of private international law. Helping parents separated by borders to come to custody agreements in the interests of their children is very important, as is allowing the safe return of a child who has been abducted. That is why the Opposition have always been fully supportive of the Government’s desire to implement the international treaties listed in clause 1, each of which has been fully scrutinised by this House and is being brought into domestic law by primary legislation. That is how the implementation of international agreements has always been done, and how we would like to see it done in future.
Unfortunately, we have seen during the Bill’s passage the Government’s desire to prise parliamentary scrutiny away from this House and these Benches. That is something we regret and something to which the other place will no doubt return in the debate ahead. Once again, we see a Government keen to do all they can to avoid proper democratic scrutiny—a Government more at ease with ruling by decree than daring to test the will of this House.

Bob Neill: We have had a constructive set of debates on the Bill, and I pay tribute to all Members for the approach that has been adopted. I pay particular tribute to the skill and elan with which the Minister has steered the Bill through the House: he is a credit to our mutual profession. He is certainly no Henry VIII—and I say that in a good way—but of course he and I are both proud members of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. The nearest Tudor connection I can find is that the first Middle Templar to be Lord Chancellor was Lord, previously Sir, Richard Rich, for those who follow “A Man for All Seasons”. I am not sure whether that is a good sign, but I do not think that the Minister is a Richard in terms of personal integrity, since he was  certainly one of the most successful Lord Chancellors but also one of the most corrupt. We have moved forward a great deal, and I suspect that the legacy still entertains us in Middle Temple with the wine cellar.
The Minister has done a great job on the Bill, and I hope he will reflect on some of the comments made, none of which were aimed to obstruct or make life difficult for the Government, because we all share the objective. I welcome the tone adopted throughout by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and those on the SNP Front Bench. It is important for the country’s sake that we get this right.
It has been rightly observed that this is not just about dry technical law. When I went to the London School of Economics in the ’70s, it had an international law module, which most of us avoided. It had just introduced a European law module, and somebody said, “There’ll never be much work around that,” which shows how things can be got wrong. As we exit a period of 40 or more years during which EU law has been an increasingly important part of our domestic and international legal systems, it is all the more important that we have a proper means of getting private international law agreements on a sound footing. I think we all share the Government’s objective in that.
I suspect that this may not be the last we hear of the Bill, either in the other place or here. I hope we will find a constructive way forward that meets some of the concerns raised in the other place about how scrutiny is dealt with. I welcome the Minister’s longer-term commitment to look at those issues. I hope he will take away the criminal sanctions aspect in particular, and the need to look at how CRaG operates.
May I give the Minister a further reading list, so to speak? As well as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the other things for a wet Friday, perhaps he could look at the Law Society and Bar Council briefings on how we deal with the two issues that I flagged briefly in Committee in relation to our having a proportionate and effective means of scrutinising the declarations that are frequently attached to international legal agreements. International agreements are often adopted by country with a declaration that modifies or limits the extent of its application to varying degrees. The Bill provides for the affirmative procedure for the initial adherence to the treaties, but it might not, as far as we can see at the moment, cover how we would properly scrutinise the declarations, which could have a significant impact.
An example of that, if the Minister wants it, is that we are committed to seeking to join in our own right the Hague choice of court convention 2005, which is an important document. When we joined it as part of the EU, the EU opted to exclude insurance contracts from that agreement. The provisions that we made following the withdrawal agreement and the memorandum on delegated powers that accompanies this Bill suggest that we will continue to exclude insurance contracts from it.
We need to think about why that is and how we will deal with scrutiny of changes to that, because the potential effect of that is to deprive court judgments based on excluded contracts of the right to be enforced by the 2005 convention when we hopefully sign up to it. That would leave a considerable gap in a very important sector of the British economy. Insurance and reinsurance  markets are of real significance to the financial world, and we need to have a means of adjusting the position if that is required and taking on board those concerns. That is precisely the area where it is suggested that we should be talking to the experts in not only private international law but the insurance sector. I have already declared my interests in relation to these matters, but it is important that we take that as an example.
A similar issue arises in relation to how we will deal with model laws. Model laws are not international conventions that impose rights and duties between contracting states, but they are what are sometimes termed agreed soft law provisions, which are often modified substantially before they are given effect in domestic law. They are important, none the less, and they are a growing area of activity, so I hope the Minister can think about the mechanism that we have to ensure that they are properly scrutinised, as well as being brought in timeously. I flag those up as examples of what we need to do. It is certainly important that we do not just stop at joining Lugano. Whether it is on the face of the Bill or not, I know that the Minister and the Government are committed to joining it, and that is an important first step, but as we all know, there are other conventions that it is most important we seek to join, some of which have already been mentioned. I hope that we will push on swiftly, for example, to implement and ratify the 1997, 2005 and 2007 Hague conventions, because between them they would provide a suite of the vital civil and family law co-operation measures that we want to see continue after the transition period.
Of course, we also hope that the Government will ratify and implement in England and Wales the 2000 Hague convention on the international protection of adults. It has already been brought into force in Scotland but not in England and Wales, and it seems bizarre that a vulnerable adult could be treated differently if they were in Gloucester as opposed to Glasgow. That implementation would, for example, enable us to deal with important issues relating to vulnerable adults such as people who are subject to powers of attorney or who are under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection and who might have overseas assets or overseas properties. Not having continuity of legal recognition of the judgments and contracts that are entered into could make it difficult to deal with those persons’ affairs.
These are techie issues, but they affect real lives, so the technical is not insignificant or without a human dimension. I hope that, as we go forward on a constructive basis, we can ensure that, having decided to leave the EU and branch out into broader areas of economic activity, the Government will make a concerted effort, as both the Law Society and the Bar Council have called for, to take a lead in selling, maintaining and building on the UK’s position as a jurisdiction of choice. Tens of thousands of jobs depend on it, as does billions of pounds-worth of economic activity, and it is in our fundamental national, strategic, economic interest to do this. With this Bill on the statute book, I hope that that is the most important thing the Government take forward as a matter of high policy in our negotiations to, hopefully, exit the EU with a deal, and in future free trade agreements.
So far, it has been tough to get free trade agreements to deal with services, and legal services in particular, but we have a potentially strong asset in our legal system  and in the integrity and standing of our judiciary, which we should never pillory. No politician should ever knock lawyers for the sake of it, because ultimately, respect for the integrity of the system is fundamental. I know that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor share that view, and I hope that the Bill will give us an opportunity to build strongly on that.

Owen Thompson: I too welcome the contributions of all hon. and right hon. colleagues today and throughout the Bill’s previous stages. I am deeply disappointed that the amendments in the names of myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) were not supported by the Government, but I will try not to take it personally. However, we will always continue to try to do what we can to make the Government’s laws better than when they were presented. I also find myself, not for the first time, in the slightly strange position of agreeing with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
This is a largely technical Bill, but it will have important consequences for many businesses and individuals. We only have to consider the impact on an individual family, and the extra hassle they might have to go through, if we were unable to get a replacement or an agreement to continue with the Lugano convention. We cannot underestimate the impact on people if these things are not got right, so every effort needs to be made, regardless of whether it is on the face of the Bill. Obviously we will need to see what comes forward. I heard the Minister say that we should now move to replace and update the legislation on other conventions, and I would certainly encourage following the precedent set through this Bill’s process in working across the Chamber and in respecting the devolution settlement and the rule of international law.

John Howell: Let me add my gratitude to everyone who has spoken in this debate. It has been a very good debate, and I am sure that we have all learned a lot from it. I congratulate the Minister on what he has been able to do. What amazes me is that he has been able to get through the Bill without once using my skills as a mediator. That must be to his great credit.
We have here something that is in the interests of the country and that gives us a new tool in the box. From a personal point of view, I look forward to the Singapore mediation convention being signed and ratified by this country as quickly as possible. I even volunteer to sit on the statutory instrument Committee in order to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Public Health

Helen Whately: I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 986), dated 13 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.
I will start with a short summary of the social distancing regulations, as context to this debate. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020—the major lockdown regulations—were introduced on March 26. Those regulations outlined restrictions on gathering and required a number of businesses to close. The regulations were amended four times as we opened up the economy and allowed for technical clarifications. They were then revoked and replaced by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020. Those regulations had been amended three times prior to 13 September to allow more businesses to reopen, as the transmission of the virus was falling or stabilising. Unfortunately, as winter approaches, the picture has changed and we now need to introduce tighter restrictions to control the virus, protect the NHS and save lives.

Mark Harper: The regulations were obviously made and brought into force ahead of the commitment that the Secretary of State made to the House last week. Given that the regulations that we are debating today cover the whole of England and are obviously of very great significance, will the Minister confirm that regulations of this nature would in future be covered by the Secretary of State’s commitment and would be brought for debate and decision in this House before they came into force? Would that also apply to, for example, the self-isolation regulations, which have not yet been debated by this House and which are also significant? I want to ensure that we are following through on the commitments that the Government made last week, and that this House will get to debate measures that cover the whole country and are of great significance.

Helen Whately: I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. Indeed, the Secretary of State has made a commitment that for future changes to restrictions that would have national effect, we will do our very best to bring them to the House to a vote, although obviously we have to bear in mind that there are circumstances in which we need to act very quickly, because, as we have seen, things can move very quickly with the infection rate and the consequences of the pandemic.
The regulations that we are debating today amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 so that people may not participate in social gatherings in groups of more than six unless they are members of the same household or support bubble, or exemptions apply. The regulations were made under the emergency procedure in order to respond quickly to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by coronavirus.

Steve Brine: I think the Minister knows what I am going to ask. I asked it last Monday in the general debate and her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the  Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), chose not to respond in the wind-up, so I will ask it again: what is the rationale for including children under the age of those who have to wear masks in the rule of six? I am asking not about the fact that it is happening, but the rationale.

Helen Whately: If my hon. Friend allows me to make a little progress, I will pick up on that point during the course of what I will say.
I appreciate that these national regulations have caused real disruption to people’s lives, placing restrictions on who people can see and what they can do. However, the evidence indicated that the covid-19 infection rate was rising across the country. It was therefore vital that the Government took decisive action to limit and slow the spread, to protect public health and to reduce the likelihood of a further national lockdown of the type that was necessary earlier this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you, Mr Speaker and a number of Members have raised concerns about parliamentary scrutiny. As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care outlined to the House last week, for significant national measures with an effect on the whole of England or UK-wide, the Government will consult the House of Commons wherever possible and hold votes before such regulations come into force.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indulging me a second time. The point of our arguing for that was insisting that Ministers had to set out their arguments and the evidence. I understand that one of the key ways of transmitting the virus is social contact, and that as the regulations have been in force for three weeks, they would lapse if this House did not debate and vote on them in the next four days, but what evidence is there that the measures are actually having an effect on reducing the rise in cases of the virus? Having looked at the data, I do not see any evidence that they are having any practical effect. We want to see action—yes—but we want the right action to be taken which will have the effect that we all wish to see.

Helen Whately: I will answer the question that my right hon. Friend asked in a moment, if he lets me continue.
As the Health Secretary set out in his statement to the House on 1 October, this virus spreads through social contact, so we are having to take difficult decisions to suppress the virus while allowing people to socialise safely. The regulations we are debating today brought previous guidance into law while tightening and simplifying it. The rule of six means that people can now gather only in groups of six both indoors and outdoors. There are exceptions to that rule for households or support bubbles that are larger than six, as well as for areas including work, schools, weddings and organised sports activities.
The regulations also gave the police the powers to enforce those legal limits, including issuing fines of £100, doubling for further breaches up to a maximum of £3,200. The vast majority of the general public will do the right things and follow the rules, but to protect public health, it is important that the police have appropriate powers to deal with those who flout the rules. As the Prime Minister announced, these measures were not a second national lockdown but are aimed at preventing the need for one.

Desmond Swayne: Do the police have powers of entry into a private dwelling to enforce these rules?

Helen Whately: I would not want to say anything incorrect at the Dispatch Box, so let me make sure that I get back to my right hon. Friend with a detailed answer to that question.
After a period of reducing or stabilising the transmission of the virus, we have been seeing daily case numbers rise rapidly across most parts of the country. That is why the Government chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser jointly agreed the changes that we announced. We know from the science of what has sadly happened in other countries that are experiencing a second wave that an increase in infections will lead to increases in hospitalisations and deaths until we take action.
In introducing the changes, we noted that clear and easily understood information about the virus and how it spreads was likely to increase adherence to public health advice. Although the majority of people report that they understand social distancing rules, feedback from the public and Members of this House indicate that people would value simpler messaging. That is why we have moved to the rule of six—one number for all settings—and have tightened the regulations so that they exactly reflect the guidance rather than there being one set of numbers in the guidance and another set of numbers in the legal framework. The rules were simplified and strengthened, so that they were easier to understand and so that the police could identify and disperse illegal gatherings.
We have acted to get the virus under control and, in doing that, we want in due course to be able to make changes and, clearly, to be able to lift the restrictions. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) asked specifically about children. The position on this is, as I have said, the need for a clear steer. We needed the guidance to be simple and absolutely clear to everybody. We wanted, on the one hand, to enable a level of socialising for the sake of people’s quality of life, while on the other hand to take steps to control the virus. That is why we took the position that the rule of six achieved that balance. I appreciate that colleagues would like a different position to have been taken, but that is the position based on the—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Helen Whately: At that specific moment, I was doing my very best to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. I think I should make some progress, but I am happy, of course, to come back to this point if colleagues feel that they have not had all the answers that they need.
As I was asked about this a moment ago, I wish to move on to the impact of these measures. I note that they have been in place for only just over three weeks. We know that, because of the incubation period of the virus, it takes at least a couple of weeks for us to see the measures take effect. When social distancing measures were first introduced, we saw high understanding, high awareness and lots of concern about covid and high adherence to the rules. What we have seen over time, with an easing of restrictions and perhaps lower levels of public concern, is that people’s social contacts have increased. Since the introduction of this rule, levels of  socialising have begun to decrease again, including specifically socialising in larger gatherings—we know that, sometimes, larger gatherings have been a factor in some outbreaks. Clearly, we are keeping a close eye on infection rates and absolute case numbers across the country.
I will now briefly talk through some further changes that have come into effect since the regulations were made.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. What she seemed to be saying was that it is too soon to tell. It is very clear from the test and trace data that the primary location for infection is in people’s households and among visitors to households. Clearly, the rule of six may have an impact on visitors to households. May I ask her to make sure that the Government publish the data as they track it out each week?
The Minister also talked about compliance. The Government keep referring to how well people are complying with regulations—or not. They do not publish any data on that. Will the Government publish the compliance data to which they have access, so that we can all see the extent to which people are complying with the rules? There is no point making rules if no one is following them. That is an important matter for this House to be aware of when it is assenting to them.

Helen Whately: My right hon. Friend makes two important points. He will be aware that the Government are publishing a large amount of data and seeking to be as transparent as possible with colleagues and, clearly, with the public, and we will continue to publish what we can. I will take away his specific requests for even further publication.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Helen Whately: I will just move on as I am conscious that I have taken quite a number of interventions—

Graham Brady: Not from me.

Helen Whately: Okay then.

Graham Brady: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are three weeks in and we know that a different model is being applied in Scotland. At what point would she expect to be able to form a judgment as to whether the Scottish approach, excluding young children from the rule of six, is less effective, as effective, or more effective than that in England?

Helen Whately: I have a personal perspective, as I have a household of five and am therefore well aware that the rule of six can make socialising quite difficult for families. For instance, my own family now cannot get together either with both my parents or my husband’s parents. I very much appreciate the difficulty of this restriction, although the majority of households are slightly smaller and are not finding it as difficult as my own or other larger households. We are keeping this and all measures under review. The Government clearly  do not want to introduce restrictions if we do not need to do so. What is crucial is that restrictions are effective, so we are looking at all the evidence, including where and how the virus is being transmitted—whether that is in households, in people’s own homes, through meeting up with other households or in hospitality settings—and we will continue to do so. But in answer to my hon. Friend’s question, I cannot give a date or a specific “This will be the moment at which it would happen.”

Graham Brady: rose—

Helen Whately: I feel I have taken quite a number of interventions, so it is time that I moved on, if that is all right.
Let me talk through some further changes that have come into effect since the regulations were made. On 21 September, following the advice of the four chief medical officers, the UK’s covid alert level was raised from 3 to 4, which is the second most serious stage, meaning that transmission is high or rising exponentially. The Prime Minister outlined to Parliament on 22 September that we were at a “perilous turning point”, and needed to act to save lives, protect the NHS and the most vulnerable, and shelter the economy from far sterner and more costly measures that would inevitably become necessary.
As a result, further restrictions came into effect from 24 September. These included: rules on the closure of certain businesses selling food or drink between 10 pm and 5 am; measures to require hospitality venues to provide food and drink for consumption on the premises by table service only; the doubling of initial fines for individual breaches of the above measures; and new fines for businesses that do not adhere to the new requirements, starting at £1,000, up to a maximum of £10,000 for repeated breaches. The rules also change the exemptions to the six-person gathering limit to restrict attendance at wedding ceremonies, receptions and support groups to 15, and remove the exemption for stand-alone religious or belief-based lifecycle ceremonies and adult indoor sports apart from indoor disabled sports. We are working through the normal channels to schedule debates for these regulations as soon as possible.
I recognise that people have had to make significant sacrifices to suppress the first wave, and these restrictions are not measures that any Government would want to introduce, but the threat of the virus very much remains. With winter approaching, we must do whatever it takes to keep it under control and protect the NHS so that it can, in turn, look after us.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Helen Whately: I am sorry but I was closing my speech, not taking an intervention. That was the end of my speech. [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. The Minister has completed her speech. She is due to come back at the end of the debate, although hon. and right hon. Members who wish to speak must bear that in mind if they wish her to speak again, because this is just a 90-minute debate.

Justin Madders: I thank the Minister for her introduction.
With 1 million people worldwide and over 42,000 people in the UK having now lost their lives to covid-19, the virus is still very much with us and the threat is clear. On Friday, the Government’s scientific and medical advisers reported that the R number in the UK could be as high as 1.6, and that it was highly likely that the virus was still growing exponentially. The spread of the disease is thought to be growing between 5% and 9% each day. There were another 12,500 new cases yesterday, and that is before we see the consequences of those missing cases, where contacts have not been identified and asked to isolate.
Just about every piece of data indicates that we are heading in the wrong direction, which is why new restrictions are required, but, three weeks into them, should we not be beginning to see a sign of progress?
More than 16 million people across the country are living under additional local restrictions, and we have further national measures, such as the 10 pm curfew, which we are not debating today, yet the progress of the virus continues unabated. Indeed, Members whose constituencies are directly affected will know that some of the heaviest increases in infection appear to be taking place in areas where additional restrictions are already in place. Today’s debate is important as it gives Members the opportunity to question how effective these interventions are, whether we need to go further and what these regulations might mean for their constituents.
Before I turn to the regulations, I remind the House that Labour has been clear from the outset that we will do whatever we can to support the national effort by supporting whatever reasonable steps are necessary to protect the NHS and save lives. That does not mean, though, that we are giving the Government a free pass. We have been concerned by the months of mixed messages and confused communication from the Government. We welcome the intention behind the rule of six. It is a simple, easily understood message, although anyone who has read the 10 pages of regulations, the plethora of exceptions and the many laws that they amend will realise that the simple message has not survived the process of drafting the regulations.

Desmond Swayne: Given that the Minister has pleaded simplicity for the rule of six, is it any less simple that the six should exclude children than that it should include them, or do we imagine that our constituents are stupid?

Justin Madders: I certainly do not think my constituents are stupid, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not either. A very important point has already been made about children, and I will return to that later. We have not yet had a convincing explanation why they are included in the six.
Even with the best of intentions, concerns and questions remain, not least about the way in which these regulations were introduced, how effective they are, how the Government communicated them and how they will be enforced. The timeline of these regulations is the perfect demonstration of the lack of transparency, strategy  and accountably, which has been the hallmark of this Government. Following media briefings the night before,   the Prime Minister made an announcement about the rule of six on 9 September, not to this place, as it should have been, even though he was in the House that day to answer Prime Minister’s questions. I call that a discourtesy to this place, and I hope we see and end of that. It shows not only a lack of respect to all Members and our constituents but a lack of confidence in what is being proposed and a lack of commitment to scrutiny. Most of all, the way that these regulations were introduced shows a lack of thought about the practicalities of enforcing them.
How can we expect anyone to adhere to the minutiae of these regulations if they appear for the first time only a quarter of an hour before they become law—at quarter to midnight on a Sunday evening? How were the police meant to enforce that? Are they supposed to google the regulations as they walk around on their beat? Brian Booth, the chair of the West Yorkshire Police Federation, said:
“Everybody is in the dark, it shouldn’t be like that…If the government says they’re going to infringe on people’s lives, they have to tell them how.”
Once again, there is no impact assessment for these regulations. Surely some thought was given to the practicalities, so what discussions did the Minister have with her counterparts in the Home Office and with police forces around the country prior to the introduction of these regulations?
The way that regulations are introduced matters. They are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law. Since March, more than 70 health protection statutory instruments have been introduced in this way, with no debate and no vote before they come into force. We recognise that, in the early stages, there was a need to act quickly under the emergency procedures, and we acknowledge that that may still be the case at times, but more and more of the regulations that are being introduced do not meet the test of urgency. The Government have slipped into bad habits. They treat this place as an afterthought—an inconvenience, an optional extra—and not as the cornerstone of the democratic process that it should be. Surely they can do better than that. Do they not realise that scrutiny, debate and challenge in the making of our laws means that, in the long run, laws are more robust, more effective and have greater public acceptance?
I repeat once again and for the record our offer to meet at short notice to debate and vote on regulations before they become law. I appreciate that that might be inconvenient for some, but, to be frank, we are in a pandemic so a bit of inconvenience should be the least that we have to put up with to ensure that democracy still functions.

Christopher Chope: On that point, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of the present state of negotiations with the official Opposition about a debate on the 10 o’clock curfew? The suggestion was that there would be a debate tomorrow on the 10 o’clock curfew, but it is not going to be about that—it is going to be about what is happening in the north. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what progress there has been?

Justin Madders: Regrettably, I am not one of the business managers of the House, so I cannot advise on that, although I expect that we will have an answer   during the business statement on Thursday. I note what Members have said about national regulations being debated on the Floor of the House before they become law, if possible—obviously, that will still be after the event, but we really need to start doing a lot better in that area.
There is rightly a concern across the House and among the population that we do not have control of the virus. A central part of regaining control is ensuring that there is robust scrutiny of the regulations and their effectiveness. The Government need to stop reacting to situations too late—that is how the virus has run out of control. They need to look ahead, plan, prepare and act now to get a grip on test and trace, to have a clear and consistent message on what the public need to do and to ensure that there is widespread compliance with the rules. The latter two go hand in hand and are very much connected to the regulations that we are debating today.
As we heard from the Minister, the regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations for the fourth time. The regulations restrict social gatherings to six people, unless an exemption applies. We have heard a little about some of those exemptions, so I will not list them all, but they are where the good intentions behind the regulations depart from the clear and consistent messaging that we need. For example, there is an exemption in the regulations for gatherings of up to 30 persons for a marriage or civil partnership; as Members will already be aware, that has been reduced to 15. Yet again, as with a whole host of other restrictions, we are debating regulations that are, in part at least, out of date.
The wedding industry has been decimated this year; I do not know what repeatedly inviting and uninviting people to a wedding does for family relations—maybe people could ask everyone to wear tweed to the wedding and combine it with a grouse shoot so that they could keep numbers at 30. However, this is a health debate, so I will focus on the health aspects. To that end, I would like the Minister to spell out very clearly the rationale for this decision. The limit of 30 at a wedding lasted for just two weeks before it was reduced to 15. Either a specific piece of evidence emerged during that fortnight that required the limit to be reduced for weddings but not for funerals, or the limit should never have been 30 in the first place. Which one is it?
The regulations also provide that the restrictions in private dwellings in the regional lockdown regulations remain in place; it is notable that the rules for the rule of six vary across the devolved nations, as we have already heard. Far from us having an easy-to-remember set of rules that apply to everyone, it seems that the rule of six is the baseline for around only half the UK.
In Wales, as we have heard, primary-age children are not counted in the six. The Welsh Assembly took that decision based on the evidence that it has, which shows that children are far less likely to have the most serious symptoms and are less likely to pass on the virus. The question, which has already been put today, is about how the Government have come to a different conclusion on that point. Why are younger children included in the rule of six in England, but not in Wales—or in Scotland, for that matter?

Steven Baker: Should I infer from the hon. Gentleman’s points that the Labour party would like children to be excluded from the rule of six? I think that is what he is saying. Obviously, this motion today is unamendable. Is he joining some of us on the Conservative side of the House in saying to the Government that we would like them to come back with a further statutory instrument to amend the regulations, so that children are excluded if they are of primary school age?

Justin Madders: What I am saying is that I would like to see the evidence. I would like to know what the difference is between this country and Wales and Scotland. The Children’s Commissioner, for one, would also like an answer. If we get the answer, we can take a position on it.

Desmond Swayne: The question was asked and the answer was that it was for simplicity. It was not a question of evidence: the answer was that it was simpler to include children. Given that there is no evidence, will the hon. Gentleman reassess his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)?

Justin Madders: That is probably overstating things. Certainly, it is not what has been said in the other place about the reasons why children were included. We do need some more clarity from the Government on that.
In terms of clarity, we also need more data and evidence from the Minister about what is happening to reduce the transmission of the virus. We need her to commit to publishing evidence behind all these decisions. If there is no evidence, then so be it, but we need to see the basis on which decisions are being made. I was a little unsure whether she was saying that it was too early, or not, to establish the effectiveness of these regulations. She said at one point that it would take a couple of weeks to see whether the regulations are being effective, but of course we are already past that point. I hope that we can see some clarity on that.
I would be grateful if we heard a bit more about why it is a rule of six, not seven, eight or five, for example. That is very important, because we are putting significant restrictions on people and those cannot be based on an arbitrary number. I raise this not because we want to pick holes in what the Government are saying but because the Transport Secretary, when asked why it was six, said there was no particular reason for that figure. Can anyone imagine a police officer going to hand out a fine to a group of seven people and, when asked why seven was an offence and six was not, saying, “Well, there’s no particular reason for that.”?

Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Justin Madders: Every suggestion the right hon. Gentleman makes is helpful, so I will.

Desmond Swayne: Could I suggest 10, and then we can count them on our fingers? That would be simple enough, wouldn’t it?

Justin Madders: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that the Government’s thought processes are rather more complex than that, but, again, we need to see what has actually been said in that respect.
When we debated the first lockdown regulations, I stated that as regulations changed, it was vital that the rules remain clear and consistent. That consistency not only carries across advice but carries across laws and all forms of official communication. It is very clear that that has not happened in this case. As we know, the Prime Minister and Ministers have made contradictory statements and have been unable to answer simple questions regarding the new regulations in the media. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if the people responsible for making the rules do not understand them, how can we expect the rest of the country to understand and follow the rules?

Steven Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Justin Madders: I am conscious that more people want to speak, so I will make this my last one.

Steven Baker: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me out. I am looking at the provision on linked households, which is introduced on page 6. I have looked at the explanatory memorandum and I cannot find the explanation of what linked households means. Is he able to clearly explain, for the benefit of the nation, what this linked households provision is all about?

Justin Madders: If we are going into pub quiz territory, then perhaps we can have a pint later on. I am afraid that we probably do not have time to go into that, because I know that a number of other Members wish to speak.
Compliance is a very important matter. The vast majority of people do comply with the rule of six, but where they have not, they will obviously get a fixed penalty notice, and we need to understand how realistic it is that that will be enforced. John Apter, the chair of the Police Federation, has called for the Government to start an effective information campaign. He said:
“For policing, these constant changes to legislation are becoming the norm. The pressures on policing have increased significantly over recent months, and this latest change will add to this pressure.”
Brian Booth, who I quoted earlier, said that officers
“simply can’t enforce”
the new restrictions, adding:
“We just don’t have the resources, the world has woken up again and it’s busy… Resources are outstripped with that demand, never mind adding on Mrs Miggins reporting that seven people are having a barbecue next door.”
I am not aware of any official figures for the total number of fines that have been issued for breaching the rule of six, or indeed whether Mrs Miggins has had a fine, but it is notable that three weeks down the line, it is reported that many police forces, including North Yorkshire police, who handed out the greatest number of fines in the original lockdown, had not issued any fines for breaches of these regulations.
Will the Minister update us on the number of fines that have actually been issued? The police have had an incredibly difficult job in this crisis, and we know the very real pressures on them due to the reductions in their numbers over the past decade. They simply cannot continue to be handed responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources to enable them to do their job. With the number of enforceable restrictions increasing, will the Minister set  out what additional resources will be handed to the police to ensure compliance? On that point, we know that Halloween is coming up very soon. It is always a busy night for the police, but this year they will have the added burden of breaking up groups of children if they become too big. Given that those children have probably spent all day with the very same kids at school in groups far larger than six, I say good luck to the officer who tries to explain to them why their parents will get a fine for it. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is what is going to happen.
There will need to be a very clear public messaging campaign, or will there be an exception? After all, the Prime Minister hinted that the rule of six could be dropped for Christmas day. Of course everyone would like to see that, but how on earth is saying that on a particular day the rule of six will not apply at all consistent with the clear public health message that the rule of six is meant to be?
Will the Minister also clarify what the rule is in relation to mingling? Apparently, a person can be fined for mingling with an existing group of six, but there is no definition within the regulations of what constitutes a mingle. The debate would be absurd if the consequences were not so serious.
In respect of police powers, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asked the Minister whether the police can go into people’s properties to enforce the law. My understanding is that they cannot. I do not know whether the Minister expects the police to stand outside people’s properties until six people come out and then take appropriate action.
On fines, will the Minister clarify whether there was an oversight in the regulations around who has committed an offence under them? I ask that because the regulations require event organisers to carry out a risk assessment in order to comply with the regulations, but there does not appear to be any penalty for them if they fail to do so. It seems that the fine in that situation would apply to the people attending the event. How can it be right that a person attending an event in good faith is liable only because the organiser has not done their job? I appreciate that subsequent regulations came into place a few days later, on 18 September, requiring hospitality venues to enforce the rule of six or face a fine of up to £4,000, but again, I do not believe that applies to outdoor events. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case? Are there any plans to introduce a penalty for the organisers of outdoor events who fail to comply with the regulations?
I am conscious that a number of people wish to speak, so I will conclude by confirming, as we have done on many occasions, that we want the Government to succeed in fighting the virus. However, let me be clear that the rise in infections we are seeing was not inevitable and the restrictions we are debating today were not inevitable. The Government cannot continue lurching from crisis to crisis. To take people with us, we need to see more transparency, the evidence behind the restrictions that are being introduced and better communication. We need new laws introduced after the democratic process has been completed.
How can we find ourselves, eight months into this pandemic, with confidence in the Government’s response draining away, rather than growing? How can we have one of the worst death rates in the world? How can we have a test and trace system so obviously failing to  deliver the basics? The regulations might not have been necessary if the Government had fixed test and trace when the sun was shining. They wasted the summer. Let us hope that the price for that is not a very bitter winter.

Nigel Evans: There are eight people on the call list, and I will get everyone in if it kills me. To do so, I am introducing a rule of six. It is not an arbitrary figure; I have divided the time left by how many people want to speak. The rule of six could become the rule of five or the rule of four if there are a lot of interventions.

Christopher Chope: The logic of what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has just been saying is that the Opposition should be opposing the regulations and calling upon the Government to come back with a fresh set of regulations that overcome the shortcomings he has so articulately identified. I, for my part, certainly hope we will have an opportunity to test the will of the House on the regulations, because this is the first freedom we have been given on such regulations for months. I hope we can then get the Government to go back to the drawing board and come forward with regulations that are consistent with their other policies elsewhere in the country.
These are complex regulations. Big Brother Watch has quoted human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who said that these are
“the most complex and convoluted set of lockdown regulations on England yet.”
That is hardly simple regulation, is it? We know that the Home Secretary herself was caught out and unable to give a convincing answer to the question of what was defined as mingling.
In the time available, I am going to say that I agree absolutely with the criticisms that have been made about the definition of families and young people, but I want to concentrate on another big anomaly in these regulations, which is that they apply equally to gatherings inside and outside. Why do they do that, because that is completely inconsistent with the Government’s own advice to themselves? It is also inconsistent with the advice even coming from Professor Lockdown, who on the radio this morning was absolutely clear that the risks from the virus were much greater in an indoor setting than in an outdoor setting. So these regulations are arbitrary, unfair, unjustified by the evidence, unenforceable and counterproductive in undermining public confidence in Government and in the rule of law.
In the interview on the “Today” programme this morning with Professor Lockdown, he was asked about the contrast between what we are doing and what people are doing in Sweden. He said that, of course, there was not much difference in the issues about social distancing and compliance, but what was important was that in Sweden the people trusted the Government, and that is why they have been able to manage with far less in terms of regulation. If I had the chance to speak to Professor Lockdown, I would have said that actually what he should have been saying was that our Government should be trusting the people. I think the Swedish Government are trusting the people and the people of  Sweden are responding positively, enabling Sweden to have a much more thriving economy than ours because they have not got so many arbitrary restrictions imposed upon them. I hope the message that the Minister will take back is that we should be looking at this in terms of trusting the people and applying common sense, and a lot of these regulations manifestly do not achieve that objective.
These regulations were brought in on a whim. They must have been drafted over a period of weeks, I would suggest, but after the Prime Minister made his statement to a press conference on the Wednesday and the Secretary of State made a statement on the Thursday, I raised a point of order on the Friday to ask, “Where are these regulations because they are coming into effect on Sunday evening?” In the end, they were not laid in this House until 10.30 am on the Monday morning. That is absolutely intolerable. The justification given in the letter that was sent, as all letters have to be sent by the Secretary of State if the Government are ignoring the rules of this House, by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was that these amendments were so urgent that he had not got time to bring them in earlier, but he said in the last paragraph, “I hope you understand why we proceeded in this way, and I look forward to working with you to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of these measures in future.”
The Minister who has been charged with dealing with this debate, despite the fact that these regulations were brought in by the Home Office actually—the Home Secretary introduced these regulations—could not answer my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) as to whether there were going to be powers of entry, arrest and so on. I am sure a Home Office Minister would have been able to do that, but what that underlines is that we are talking about draconian powers that are restricting the liberty of the British citizen. We should not be introducing draconian powers without the strongest possible justification, and I do not think the Minister has set out any justification in her remarks.

Steve McCabe: I am sure the Minister really appreciated that warm welcome from her colleagues—so different from those horrid breakfast-time interviews that she is occasionally trapped in.
I would like to make three very quick points. I want to ask, first, about this rule of six. If it is a purely arbitrary figure and it has no scientific basis at all, does the Minister accept that she is being quite unfair to those with larger extended families, and how does she justify that?
Secondly, we need clarity on the question about police powers of entry. It is quite ridiculous for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that the police can level fines and that they can do this or that enforcement, only for us to discover that, if they are standing outside a property where there is a party of 40, 50 or 60 going wild, they have no room to enter. It would be useful, if we are being asked to renew these powers, to know what powers the police have.
Finally, is there a numerical point of reference—an R number, say, or a number of cases—for when these restrictions will be revised in either direction? If that is the case, surely we should know, and surely the public should know.

Graham Brady: The so-called rule of six, like the ban on household mingling in some parts of the country and, indeed, the original lockdown measures, was introduced under public health laws that were originally envisaged as a means of controlling the movement of infected people, not of whole populations and not for indefinite periods of time. The approach being taken is truly unprecedented. These rules are a massive intrusion into the liberty and private lives of the whole British people, and they are having a devastating economic effect, which will result in big job losses and masses of business failures.
The rule of six has only been in place for three weeks or so, but much of the country has been under additional restrictions for much longer. In Greater Manchester, for example, people have been banned from mixing with other households, including close family, since late July. It would be interesting to know what conclusions the Government have reached about the efficacy of these restrictions, given the 10 weeks of experience that we now have in those areas with greater restrictions.
Rates of positive testing in those areas have fluctuated over the summer months. In Trafford, rates were falling in July, when we were put into the additional restrictions, but rising a month later. After 10 weeks, the positive test figures in Trafford are roughly twice as high as they were in July. In the city of Manchester, the increase has been tenfold.
If I asked the Minister whether these restrictions are proving effective, I suspect that she would say, “But it might have been worse if we weren’t doing it.” If so, she needs to tell the House how long she would maintain a ban on household mingling or a rule of six in the event that test rates continued not to respond to the restrictions. Does she accept that there could be no exit from the policy?
Can the Minister share with the House her estimate of the efficacy of a rule of six, compared with that of a rule of eight, had that been introduced instead? Is a rule of six more or less effective than a ban on household mixing? What assessment have the Government made of the efficacy of the rule of six in England, and in Scotland and Wales, where young children are excluded from it? The Minister did not answer that question when I intervened earlier, and she would not say when such an assessment would be made, but it is a very important point. I would have thought that by the time a month has elapsed, it should be possible to see which is working better or whether they are interchangeable.
For the state to direct people whether or when they can see their families in their own homes or gardens is an extreme intervention, and this House should set the highest bar possible before approving it. If such an intrusion into people’s lives can be justified, Ministers need to be able to demonstrate that it works, they need to be able to reassure people that it will be temporary, and they need to set out the criteria under which the restrictions will be lifted. I hope the Minister will answer those questions today.

Munira Wilson: It is a strange place to be when I find myself in agreement today  with so many Members on the Government side of  the Chamber.
I feel it is important for me, on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, to emphasise two points that have been raised already. They are on the importance of evidence-based policy making, and on promoting and protecting the wellbeing and mental health of children.
Like many others, I have struggled to find the evidence for the rule of six. It has been reported that SAGE has recommended it, and from the start of the pandemic the Liberal Democrats have always said that we will follow the science. However, in order to build trust and to secure buy-in and compliance from the public, it is important to show your workings, so, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) said, we need to know about the trade-offs involved. Why six? Why not seven? Why not eight? No SAGE minutes on the covid-19 response have been published since 30 September—at least I could not find any—and the published minutes do not include discussion about the rule of six, which was introduced on 9 September. Was there a subsequent meeting of SAGE on covid-19 measures between 3 and 9 September? Will the Government publish the minutes and show the workings behind the rule of six? We have yet to see that clear, robust scientific evidence in support of this decision, particularly around the decision to include children under 12.
As we have heard, in Wales and Scotland children have been exempted. The Minister has said previously that children have been included in England for simplicity’s sake. To reiterate a point that was made earlier, does she think that people in Scotland and Wales are able to follow a slightly more complex message, as opposed to people in England, who need a simpler message about children?
Although the pandemic has had a terrible impact on the entire population, children and young people have too often been overlooked, as we saw in the decision to reopen pubs, restaurants and non-essential shops before schools. Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner, has said:
“Children have fewer health risks from Covid-19 and yet they have suffered disproportionately from the nation’s efforts to contain the virus.”
I appreciate that we are learning all the time and that there is limited research available, but recent research in the Netherlands from the RIVM—the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment—has found:
“The novel coronavirus is mainly spread between adults and from adult family members to children. The spread of COVID-19 among children or from children to adults is less common. In general, the younger the children, the less significant the role they play in spreading the virus.”
If children were such a major part of the problem in terms of transmission, we would be hearing about far greater numbers of bubbles being sent home from school. I could not find data on that point, but I know from my constituency that very few bubbles have been sent home. Indeed, last week, in primary schools across the Richmond borough, there was a 93% attendance rate among primary school children. That suggests to me that children under 12 are playing a very minor role in transmission.
As has been said, the rule of six discriminates against large families and households, where a family of six or more cannot meet a relative or friend but a family of three, four or five can. That impacts on the grandparents more than the parents, as in larger families they are unable to see their grandchildren. We should also consider  the fact that larger families with four or more children may fear being out in public, in case people think they are being rule-breakers.
In terms of children’s mental health and well-being, the importance to children of being able to socialise, interact and play outside the school setting with other children is crucial. A Barnardo’s poll of 4,000 children aged eight to 24 found that 68% said that not seeing their friends was the most difficult thing about the pandemic.
I appreciate that the Government have conceded the point on informal childcare, by exempting informal childcare from the rule of six, and I welcome that move, but I see no reason why two families with two children under 12 should not meet up in a playground. I declare an interest, as I have a two-year-old and a six-year old.
I very much hope that the Minister will give us a better explanation than “simplicity” in her concluding remarks. If it is about clarity of message, the constant chopping and changing of the guidance, the hugely complex rules in different parts of the country, and politicians and advisers wilfully breaking them, are the reasons why messages have been undermined. We should not make up for poor communication and those errors on the backs of our children.
Frankly, we would not have to consider blunt measures at all if we had a functioning system to test, trace and isolate every case of the virus to keep people safe. Furthermore, we should backward-trace every outbreak to ensure that super-spreader events are cracked down on so that we can take a much more tailored and targeted approach until we have a vaccine.

Huw Merriman: It is welcome that we are having a debate, scrutiny and ultimately a vote in the House. For that, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), but also the Government for listening to our plea that surely we can make better decisions. We can help the Government, but also own the decisions, take responsibility as Members, and provide the link with our constituents—the people who are impacted by the measures. That can only be good for democracy and decision making.
I will vote on what I believe is best for my constituents. When I cast my vote, I will look at whether what the Government seek to do is proportionate. Of course, I understand that it is the Government’s first requirement to protect the public and that measures must be introduced to protect people from covid. However, when those measures have other, detrimental impacts on health so that individuals do not go to hospital and get checked out when they could have a treatable cancer or they suffer from mental ill health, isolation and loneliness, and their livelihoods are at stake because of what is happening to our economy, we have to take that into account when we vote. That is what I look to do.
I have great concerns about the rule of six because I do not see the evidence for how it will reduce covid rates. I do not understand the difference with what is happening in Scotland and Wales. There is also complexity. For example, this morning, with other Members, including the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), I played  five-a-side outside. That is effectively 10 households mixing. It is good—it is sport and I am not saying that it should be banned; it should be allowed. However, on Sunday, when I was in Buckingham, I was unable to go with my sisters and children on a small horse-riding activity, solely because we would have been over a certain number. To me, that does not make sense. If one of the children had been left behind, and one of the adults gave covid to the other adult, that adult would have gone home and given it to the child who was left behind.
I hear the argument about simplicity, but when I was trying to work out whether horse-riding fitted within the definition of recreational organised sporting activity, I could not do it. I therefore do not believe that the current rules are simple. If I had been in Scotland, it would not have been an issue because of the rules on under-12s. If I had been in parts of Wales, it would not have been a problem because of the rules on under-11s. Also, in Wales, 30 people are allowed to gather outside, yet in England, the number is just six. There is no logic in that. I would like the Government to look at what other nations have done and the evidence there.
Ultimately, the measures have a huge impact on liberty, which affects people’s happiness and health. Twenty-eight per cent. of my constituents are over 65, whereas the national average is 17%. I therefore have a lot of elderly constituents who are unable to see their families. When they look at some of the other rules, such as that for five-a-side football, they just do not understand.
I say to Front Benchers: we rule by consent and we need people to come with us. People I speak to, who have been religious devotees of lockdown, now say, “I am just not going to do this any more.” The concern is that they will not follow some of the other rules, which make sense and should be in place. Professor Carl Heneghan, who is the leading scientist and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, got it right when he said that
“the ‘rule of six’ could well be the policy that tips the British public over the edge. For it is a disturbing decision that has no scientific evidence to back it up”.
I look for that evidence, but I still do not see it. On that basis, I am afraid that I am unable to vote for the rule of six. I do not believe that it is proportionate and that it will do what the Government hope. I fear that it will do more harm than good.

Tim Farron: I, too, am deeply concerned that the evidence for the rule of six is not extensive enough to demonstrate that it does more good than harm. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and we will hopefully hear in days to come more of the evidence behind this rule. However, for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and others, there is deep concern about undermining consent for the process.
In a sense, this is a mobile lockdown for families who may well be able to leave their home and do various things but cannot mingle. I am very concerned—not least because of the growing presence in my inbox, in my  phone surgeries and at the one or two physical surgeries that I have started again—about the serious growth in the volume of mental health-related cases, and specifically among younger people. They are heartbreaking individually and deeply alarming when we see the volume of them collected together. That is why we need to be very careful in understanding the complexities of human relationships and how important they are to our sense of wellbeing.

Chris Elmore: In relation to a four-nations approach, the First Minister of Wales has called on the Prime Minister to ask people in restricted areas in England not to travel into Wales. The Prime Minister has refused. The First Minister of Wales has now said that people living alone—including in my constituency, which is under restrictions—can bubble with one person within the county to help improve mental health. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, groups of 30 can gather outside in Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we had a genuine four-nations approach to this, we could learn from decisions taken by the Welsh Government in the way that they can learn from ones taken by the UK Government? At the moment, there seems to be some sort of blockage to the four nations working together, and I put it to him that it is partially the Prime Minister and No. 10.

Tim Farron: The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. Any party in power anywhere would have been like a rabbit in the headlights over the last six months, given what has happened, so I am not making a particular partisan point. It could happen in any Administration with any combination of colours of party. I am always careful not to use the phrase “U-turn” as an insult or a barb, because it shows that someone was listening and has enough substance to take on board the fact that somebody else may have had a better idea. I always say that all my best ideas were somebody else’s first. It is critical that this is a learning and iterative process, so I take that point on board.
It is the mental health concerns that I have for families, and particularly younger people, that make me sceptical and lead me to ask questions about the lack of evidence behind this. Much as I want to support the Government in doing tough things that need to be done to control the virus until we can eradicate it through a vaccine, we need more evidence.
I think inconsistency is an issue for all of us, and certainly for most of us who are here today with a particular interest in this matter. If we stick to the rule of six, I do not see why multiples of six cannot be used as the building blocks of bigger events. At the moment, there is a limit of 15 people allowed at a wedding. It seems entirely possible to make that an event of 36 or 48 people with building blocks of six, if the venue was big enough. Up to 300 people are allowed at a non-league football match below the seventh tier, so if someone wants to get together with their mates, they can just turn up at the mighty Kendal Town on Saturday. Those things are possible, and that inconsistency makes it difficult for people to understand why the Government are doing it and why they should be obedient.
The impact on the wedding industry, the events industry and the leisure industry is huge, and it is adding to the economic hardship that many people are experiencing. It seems wrong for us to be unnecessarily forcing people  through that hardship, particularly as we come to the end of furlough in a few weeks’ time, when an intelligent approach could allow us to restrict people’s behaviour and protect against the virus but not kill several industries in the process.
I will finish by focusing on something else that worries me deeply. Our ability to get people to comply with regulations that exist to keep them safe, save lives and protect the national health service depends upon the credibility of the rules to which we expect them to be obedient. That is why the evidence is here. The rules also need to be coherent and easy to understand, which the rule of six just about is—that is the best argument that I have heard for it so far. They also have to be consistent from week to week, and with other areas of application, as I mentioned.
If people are going to be expected to be obedient and to comply with restrictions that exist to protect themselves and others, they also have to be able to afford to comply. That is my great concern moving forward. If the Government are looking at a traffic light system, which in itself is not a bad idea, that allows there to be blanket closures of the hospitality, tourism and leisure sector in certain towns, boroughs or counties, we surely cannot expect those industries and employers to close down and for there to be no compensation, and no return to furlough for those areas or grant system for those businesses.
In Cumbria, hospitality and tourism is the biggest single employer. It is the fourth biggest in the country. We cannot, when the traffic light gets to red, expect those businesses to close down completely without compensation. People will not comply with the rules if they fear that they will be unable to pay their rent or mortgage or feed their kids in the process. Let us ensure that the rules that we have are credible, coherent and consistent, and that people can afford to obey them.

Steven Baker: May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister, the other Ministers in the Department and officials? They are obviously working extremely hard, and I completely accept their good faith in extremely difficult circumstances. I particularly want to pay tribute to the drafters of these very complex regulations. I know from my time as a Brexit Minister that when there are a lot of statutory instruments to do it is extremely hard work for them, and they do not get anything like enough thanks, so I want to put all of that on the record.
It remains the case that this is a dangerous disease for people with risk factors, and I certainly see why the Government wish to introduce measures. My friend and constituent, the epidemiologist Dr Raghib Ali, has written in The Telegraph that both the REACT—real-time assessment of community transmission—and Office for National Statistics studies
“showed that the levels of infection have increased in all age groups, including the most vulnerable older age groups, and also in all regions, but with much larger increases in the North, Midlands and London.”
However, he goes on later in the article to state:
“They all show this is not a repeat of the first wave as infections are rising much more slowly, doubling roughly every 11 days now vs. three days then. And crucially, they also show that the rate of increase is slowing down significantly.”
He goes on, it has to be said, to say that the Government are getting it broadly right.
I have real concerns about the very high cost of the measures. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) gave some examples, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) talked about the need for two families to meet, making eight, but what about two parents and three children? They can meet only one grandparent under the rules.
Elsewhere, we have other stories that are out of the scope of the statutory instrument. If I can get away with one anecdote, there was a story on the BBC website of a wife talking about springing her husband in his 80s out of the care home so that they can spend some time together at that late stage. People are bearing an absolutely appalling set of costs, and anecdotes of poor compliance are rising. Indeed, there seems to be a gap between people’s intentions to comply and what they actually do, as was revealed in the King’s College London research that the Government commissioned.
It is not clear now that the benefit of lockdown outweighs the costs. Although the report fell rather flat, The Telegraph covered some Department of Health and Social Care analysis that seemed to show that in quality-adjusted life years, adjusting for co-morbidities, the cost of the first lockdown was greater than the cost of the disease. In a spirit of good will, where we all mean to minimise harm and maximise human flourishing in the fullest sense, we have to ask whether this set of circumstances is really what we want.
Time and again in our own constituencies, and talking to colleagues in the Tea Room, we hear about people who are being destroyed by this lockdown. Strong, confident, outgoing, gregarious people are being destroyed and reduced to repeated episodes of tears on the phone—all around the House, people are agreeing with me about that. The situation is having a devastating social impact on our society. I believe people would make different choices were they able to take responsibility for themselves, so I have really quite deep concerns about this statutory instrument.

Craig Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is making the powerful point that there are other health issues and other effects of such draconian rules. Does he agree that the Government should now be publishing what those other effects are? Rather than just the bald figures on infection rates, hospital rates and deaths attributed to covid alone, there should be broader figures on mental health, cancer and all the other treatments, and the deaths that we are not seeing yet but are simply stocking up for the future.

Steven Baker: I do agree. I call on Ministers to publish robust data about the balance of costs and benefits. I understand that there is no impact assessment to go with this statutory instrument—I was certainly told that when I picked it up. We really should now be looking extremely carefully at the balance of cost and benefit to overall human flourishing. I am certainly not currently persuaded that the benefit is net positive.
I pay tribute to 66 GPs, led by Dr Ellie Cannon, who have written to the Secretary of State to say that it is now time for him
“to consider non-covid harms and deaths with equal standing as the reported deaths from covid”.
They have suggested that there be a GP on SAGE; I suggest that we also have some economists on SAGE and have made some other proposals about competitive scientific advice, devil’s advocates and other measures that could improve things. The letter from GPs is extremely important. It is time to listen to GPs.
As I reflect on this statutory instrument, I have to say that it is also time to start to think about another way. The Government’s strategy is clearly to suppress the virus, through instruments such as the one we are discussing, pending a vaccine. But what if a vaccine does not come? What if a vaccine, when it comes, does not achieve the ends aimed at? What if we still need some kind of measures alongside a vaccine? I have talked to specialists in this area, and it seems to me—with great sadness—to be pretty clear that we might be in those circumstances, in which case the Government will need a plan B.
For that reason, I was very glad to sign the Great Barrington declaration and to encourage parliamentarians of all parties and both Houses to sign it to show that there is political consensus in both Houses and across all parties for another way. This is plan B, authored by Dr Martin Kulldorff, Dr Sunetra Gupta and Dr Jay Bhattacharya and signed by 1,120 medical and public health scientists, 1,241 medical practitioners and more than 19,000 members of the public, including me. I commend it to the Government.

Nigel Evans: Before I call Mark Harper, I would like to say that if business does end early, I hope that David Linden and Richard Drax, who are presenting petitions, will not be far from the Chamber, and that Richard Holden, who has the Adjournment debate, and Ed Argar, the Minister who will respond to it, are not far away either. I should hate for them to miss their opportunities.

Mark Harper: The good thing about this debate and your having put in place a firm time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the Minister will have a great deal of time at the end to answer the many questions. Having served as a Minister myself, I know that that will be a helpful opportunity to put to rest—hopefully—colleagues’ concerns.
At the beginning of the debate I raised a couple of other sets of regulations that we are not considering today, but I hope the Minister will confirm that they will be debated in the Chamber—on the Floor of the House—and that we will have the opportunity to vote on them. The first set is the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020, to which she has referred. They bring into force the restrictions on the trading hours of licensed premises, which I know are of concern to many colleagues. It is very important that those regulations are debated on the Floor of the House: they affect the whole country and, in the spirit of the pledge given by the Secretary  of State last week, we should have the opportunity to do so.
A number of colleagues are concerned about the police enforcement powers. From my reading of the regulations that these regulations we are debating amend,   I could not find any reference to powers of entry, but there are powers of arrest and powers to use reasonable force. Those powers are not in the regulations that we are debating, but I give the Minister notice of this. There are measures in the self-isolation regulations—which I also hope will be debated on the Floor of the House—that give powers of reasonable force to police community support officers, to any person given those powers by the Secretary of State and to local government employees. As a former Home Office Minister, I am not comfortable with the powers to use reasonable force being given to people who do not have the training to use them. I have seen occasions where that has led to the loss of life, and I have to say to the Minister—as a former Chief Whip, I do not say this lightly—that if those regulations are not amended, I will vote against them. I am not voting to give powers to use reasonable force to people who are not trained to use those powers. If they use them incorrectly, it will lead to the deaths of adults and, potentially, children. The Minister should reflect on that and bring a revised set of regulations to the House, when I would be delighted to vote for the self-isolation part, which is very valuable.
Secondly, on the regulations before us today, I think limiting the mixing of households is warranted in principle. Looking at the evidence from the test and trace system, household transmission, household visitors and visiting friends and relatives are very significant vectors of transmission—far more, cumulatively, than a whole range of leisure activities, which is where I think the 10 pm curfew is not very well evidenced. There is some merit behind these measures in general, but I pick up on the points made by a number of colleagues.
The four nations of the United Kingdom have implemented this rule in different ways. The Minister should look at the evidence from different parts of the United Kingdom, and at some of the questions we have raised about whether children are included and the age of those children. A lady stopped me in the street last week. She had just had a new addition to her family, a small baby, which now means the family cannot meet both the grandparents. Given that the baby is not going to be an independent actor for some time, and so is not going anywhere independently of their parents, I fail to see how the inclusion of that baby, meaning the family are no longer able to see both the grandparents, is at all sensible. That constituent sees no merit in it at all.

Steven Baker: I notice that my right hon. Friend is back on a time limit, so I take this opportunity to note that we are voting on these regulations retrospectively. For that reason, I am going to abstain tonight. If we were voting on them prospectively then, for the kinds of reasons he is giving, and indeed for the reasons I gave, I would have voted against them. I shall abstain tonight, because I realise they are in force. I would like to see them changed in the ways he is setting out.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) pressed the Minister on this: if the evidence is not available as to whether these regulations have been effective so far, perhaps she could give an indication of what sort of time period the Government are looking at. I think everyone in the House wants the Government to be successful in driving  down the rate of infection, but I pick up the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). If the Government bring in a measure because they think it is going to work and it simply does not—we are learning things about this virus all the time—it is not only not harmful but positively sensible for the Government to say, “This one didn’t work. We tried it. We are going to stop doing this, and we will take a different course that we think will be more successful.” That sort of attitude would secure a great deal of support from the House and, I think, from the public.
Perhaps the Minister could say a little about when we should see this kicking in. I raise this because tomorrow we will debate the specific local lockdown regulations for the north-west and the north-east. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have a particular interest in this matter, given the location of your constituency. Some of these regulations in some parts of the country have been in force for quite considerable periods of time, and, apart from in one place, there is no evidence that they are having an effect on bearing down on the virus. In that case, all they are doing is causing economic damage without actually delivering a health benefit. At that point, the Government should reflect on whether the regulations are working and think again.
I draw my remarks to a close. I hope for those reassurances about the other two sets of regulations I talked about. We will expect them to be debated on the Floor of the House if the Government remain true to the Secretary of State’s commitment last week, which I welcome. I welcome the fact that it is being brought into force tomorrow, as we debate the north-west and north-east regulations. I look forward to the Minister saying a little more about evidence. I am grateful that she is going to have around 12 minutes to do so, which gives us an opportunity to probe her a little further.

Helen Whately: I thank all colleagues who have spoken in this debate, because I have been grateful for the thoughtful approach that many of them have taken. Just as I do in my role, Members have drawn on experiences from their own lives and of course from what they hear from constituents. The backdrop to this debate is the fact that the country is in the grip of a global pandemic. We are battling a highly infections and deadly disease, facing a challenge that this country has not faced since the second world war. As we have seen, this virus can spread through the population at an exponential rate, killing people as it goes. Only because of that have the Government brought in such restrictions to people’s lives, ones that clearly no Government would wish to bring in. The alternative—just allowing the virus to let rip—simply cannot be the right thing to do.

Steven Baker: Nobody is suggesting that we let the virus rip; radical as I may be, I cited some supportive passages in my remarks. The Minister says that the virus is deadly. We all accept it is deadly for people who have prior risk factors, which raise the infection fatality rate, but is it not the truth that for a great many people who are younger and without prior conditions this is not an especially deadly disease? We knew that at the beginning; we know it today. It is deadly for a certain section of our society, and it is them we are looking after. Can we please be honest about that?

Helen Whately: I appreciate that my hon. Friend did not take the “let rip” position, but some have done so. The majority of those who have spoken this evening have absolutely supported the fact that we need to have restrictions in place, which is good to hear.

Craig Mackinlay: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Whately: May I just finish responding to my the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)? He says that for the vast majority this is a mild illness and that the deaths have particularly been among those with underlying health conditions. It is true to say that the majority of those who have died were older and with underlying health conditions, but, sadly, some have died who did not have known underlying health conditions and were younger. I well remember reading about a nurse not far from my constituency, in Kent, who had three young children and was only slightly younger than me but who died early in the pandemic. So it is not true to say that this affects only older and unwell people, although we should also mourn the older people whose lives have been taken before their time, many of whom were in receipt of care.
The other point is that among those who have had mild illness we are seeing increasing evidence of the condition known as “long covid”, where, sadly, there are long-term health consequences of covid. We are learning about those all the time; they are making it materially difficult for people to lead their lives some weeks and even months after they had the illness, even if they had it mildly in the first place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Helen Whately: I will make progress, as colleagues made a large number of points during their speeches that I am keen to respond to. I will take further interventions if there is time.

Mark Harper: I just wanted to challenge the Minister on this let it rip point, as the Secretary of State has done that as well. I ask the Minister to take it from me that we all want the Government to be successful, but if every time somebody asks a question or posits a different strategy, we are accused of wanting to “let it rip” and kill tens of thousands of people, this debate will not remain good tempered. Please accept that we are all trying to get this right. We are all willing to be generous, because, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, this is difficult, but I ask the Minister please not to say that Members of this House who suggest a different strategy in order to be successful want to let the disease rip and kills tens of thousands of people. We do not, and we will not be pleased if that is what we are accused of doing.

Helen Whately: I absolutely hear my right hon. Friend’s point. I reiterate the response that I just gave, which is that I very much appreciate the support of colleagues in general for taking action to suppress the virus, and I think it is extremely valuable for us to be debating some of the measures, as we are this evening.

Steven Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Whately: If my hon. Friend would allow me, I would like to make a little bit of progress, otherwise  I will have remarkably little time left.
We have a clear strategy, which is to control and suppress the virus while doing all we can to protect the economy, people’s work, schools and the NHS, so that it, in turn, can care for us.
Let me turn to some of the points made by hon. Members. Various reasons have been suggested for the rapid introduction of the regulations. In fact, the shadow Minister made some suggestions. The Government have had to act fast. When we see the rates of increase—particularly when we take away the average across the country, and look at specific areas and parts of the population where the doubling rate can be going up really quickly—it is clear that we need to act fast. The alternative is to act slowly—and if we did that for several days, it would be inaction. That just means that the virus would be left to spread further and faster.
Colleagues have asked for further information about the impact and effectiveness of measures. I get the sense that some Members would like to hear, “If you do x, you get y,” in a very mathematical way. We are dealing with a new disease that simply is not known to the level of “A leads to B exactly.” We look at a huge amount of evidence, including at what is happening overseas, the difference made by local lockdowns and evidence from the test and trace system. All that evidence informs the decisions that are made. We know that social contact is a particular cause of the spread, so we must reduce social contact.

Craig Mackinlay: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Whately: I am really sorry, but I have so little time.
We have seen reduced levels of socialising since introducing the rule of six, but that is against a backdrop of rates rising in particular parts of the country, which are now under further restrictions. We will continue to look at the evidence and ensure that we are putting in place effective interventions.
The measures that we are debating today are clearly coupled with the vital rules such as hands, face and space. We all have our part to play. We will continue to assess the effectiveness of the measures, but we need restrictions in place until covid rates come down.

William Wragg: rose—

Christopher Chope: rose—

Helen Whately: I have only three minutes left, so I am keen to cover a few more points that have been made in the debate.
Colleagues have spoken about children and the rule of six. As I have said, I am acutely mindful of this point as I have a family of five. I am well aware that Wales and Scotland, where health is devolved, have made their own decisions, including a slightly different decision on this issue. Of course, we will learn from the other parts of the United Kingdom. There are regular conversations between the devolved authorities and the UK Government.
On the matter of extended families and larger households, there is an exemption for larger households—clearly, they can gather—but in some areas there has been a particularly rapid spread when larger households of extended families come together. That can be a particular source of the spread, so it is much harder for larger households wanting to socialise. This is a difficult balance to strike, but we want to ensure that we are suppressing the virus because it is such a cruel thing.
Let me turn to policing. The police approach is one of engage, explain, encourage and enforce. I can confirm that they do not have power of entry, but my understanding of the feedback that we have received from the police is that they feel that they do not need further powers to enforce these measures.
I would like to reiterate the Government’s commitment to working with Parliament and to debating regulations such as these and others. I should say that we absolutely recognise the impact of these restrictions on people’s lives, and that it is with great reluctance that we bring them in. None the less, as I have said, the alternative is not suppressing the rate of the virus, and, as I have mentioned, it is not always a mild illness. We are seeing cases of long covid. There is also a health impact on our hospitals: if they become too full treating people with covid, they will struggle to treat people with other illnesses. That has its own health implications, and cannot be the right strategy. The strategy has to be to control this virus and to suppress it with the rule of six and all the other things that we as individuals can do, including our own compliance with the social distancing measures. We must take this approach, and I thank everybody for all that they are doing. I know that the public face the implications of these restrictions day in, day out, as we do ourselves, but we must do it, because it is the way that we get back to normal as soon as possible.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 17.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 986), dated 13 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 988), dated 14 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.—(Whip.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Funding for Purbeck Schools

Richard Drax: It is a great pleasure to present this petition to the House. It is signed by more than 3,000 residents of Dorset and it calls for Purbeck schools to be funded properly and for the funding cuts to be reversed. I am delighted to say that, as we know, the Government have given more money to schools, but it is my personal view, too, that with all the additional moneys on salaries, inflation, the cost of paper and the rest of it, that levelling up, which we welcome, has not quite helped schools in Dorset. I therefore present this petition with the sense, and in the hope, that the Government will look at this again and ensure that all our children, and particularly those in Dorset schools, are funded equally and fairly.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that schools in Purbeck are currently facing significant funding cuts leaving numerous schools underfunded; notes that over three thousand residents of Dorset signed a petition to save Purbeck schools from funding cuts; and further that every child in Dorset has the right to a good, well-funded education.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse all funding cuts to Dorset Schools, and support the reallocation of funding to ensure schools in Dorset are well-funded and able to perform effectively.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002605]

Petition - Financial support for the self-employed during COVID-19

David Linden: In recent days, my inbox has been inundated with countless emails from my east end constituents who are rightly concerned about the Chancellor’s winter economic plan and the British Government’s withdrawal of financial support, whether from furlough or the greatly reduced self-employment income support scheme. Of course, that does not include the injustice of the 3 million people excluded from financial support from the start of the pandemic.
I therefore rise to present the following petition from the good people of Glasgow East:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a particularly harsh impact on those individuals who are self-employed or run small businesses; expresses concern that the Chancellor’s recent Winter Economic Plan means the Self Employment Income Support Scheme is to be wound down; and further expresses concern over the many gaps already existing in the previous scheme, which was inadequate for millions of people who considered themselves excluded from Government support.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward additional measures to support those self-employed and freelance workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002606]

Shotley Bridge Community Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Richard Holden: When I applied for this Adjournment debate, the situation was by no means as clear as it appears to be following the announcement from the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary last week. Shotley Bridge has been at the heart of the community in North West Durham since it was founded as a sanatorium for tuberculosis in 1912. Following the first world war, it was leased to the Ministry of Health to house and rehabilitate military casualties. It was transferred back to local authority control for use as a facility for mental illness before again becoming involved in the war effort in 1941, when it became an emergency hospital and the 16 now demolished huts that adorned the site were built.
Following the Beveridge report of the 1940s, the “A National Health Service” White Paper of 1944 by Sir Henry Willink, and finally the formal beginnings of our national health service under Aneurin Bevan, Shotley Bridge joined our NHS in 1948. It is on the same Liberal, Conservative, Labour cross-party consensus that the new plans for Shotley Bridge Hospital—or the replacement for it—are founded. I pay tribute to some of the local councillors I have met on the Shotley Bridge reference group, particularly Councillors Alex Watson, Owen Temple, Alan Shield and many others, and to the excellent staff at the clinical commissioning group and the local hospital trust who have met me on many occasions over the last few months.
Partly as a result of the steelworks at Consett and also due to its wartime use, Shotley Bridge became known for its plastics and burns treatments. A new out-patient block joined in 1950, and the tower built in 1969, which is still there today, was the last major investment in the site. The opening of the new University Hospital of North Durham, known locally by everyone in the area—including, I am sure, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—as Dryburn, was opened in 2001, and with that, many services moved from Shotley Bridge to other parts of the county. In 2005, the majority of the old hospital buildings on the site were demolished and they have now become part of the growing Consett housing estate. In 2005, the majority of the old hospital buildings on the site were demolished and have now become part of the growing Consett housing estate.
However, Shotley Bridge Hospital still very much forms part of the community and is a real source of local pride. I am reliably informed that you can tell if a nurse has trained at Shotley Bridge by the way they are and their professionalism. Sir Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, himself did his early training at Shotley Bridge Hospital. Perhaps one of the reasons that Shotley is such a part of the community is the fact that anybody who lived and grew up in Consett and was able to vote at the last general election was likely to have been born there, although since 2001 the maternity services have moved.
Now a community hospital with an eight-bed ward, an urgent care centre and a number of out-patient treatments, Shotley Bridge is still very much at the heart of our local area. During the recent coronavirus outbreak,  it particularly showed its worth, as places like Shotley Bridge were really able to step up and provide some of the facilities that were needed. Even at the height of the covid-19 outbreak, over half the floor space at the hospital was still in use—a fact that I got from the chief executive of the local hospital trust recently—although it was briefly stepped up to 24 beds. With almost all the buildings now at least 50 years old, and many much older, the cost of running repairs amounts to over £1.5 million a year. As services have slowly moved away, local people have been campaigning hard to stop the hospital closing completely. I pay huge tribute to the efforts of many local people over many years.
Securing the future of local hospital provision was at the core of my election campaign in North West Durham. Since being elected, I have been pressing Ministers on it remorselessly in the House—in my maiden speech, at Prime Minister’s questions, in questions and debates with Ministers from the Minister’s Department, and, indeed, with the Minister himself. In fact, even before today, Shotley Bridge Hospital had been mentioned by me seven times in the past 10 months, which is a significant uptick on the previous 10 years in which it had been mentioned just twice.
I was delighted to have the Secretary of State join me on a visit to Shotley Bridge last month—the first time that any member of staff could remember a Health Minister visiting the facility. I had actually initially invited my hon. Friend the Minister to come, but the Secretary of State clearly decided to steal it for himself, which is fair enough. The Secretary of State was really impressed by what he saw, particularly some of the nurse-led units, the huge integration with local GP practices near the site, and the fact that chemo services from across Durham had been moved to the hospital during the coronavirus outbreak—a sensible innovation to keep very vulnerable patients away from acute centres. That is something that has happened at Shotley Bridge that I hope will be replicated in other community hospitals across the country.
With Shotley Bridge now joining the list of 40 hospitals that the Government are committed to, I would like to offer my personal thanks, as well as that of many of my constituents, for the support that the Government are providing. The overall programme of over £3 billion is one of the largest capital investments for many years, and this is on top of the extra £33.9 billion a year that will be going into our NHS by 2023-24. That is helping to provide some of the excellent extra doctors and nurses we can now see starting to come through on the frontline. The announcement from the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary is obviously hugely welcome. However, I am not the sort of MP who will just go away and shut up, to borrow a phrase from a Government Minister I once worked for—although, I must add, not when I was a special adviser—so I would like to push the Minister on a few points about the announcement.
Last year, it was made clear that some of the moneys for the hospital had been secured, but they were well short of what would be required for a new facility, as outlined by the Secretary of State in his letter to me on 2 October. I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed publicly the details of the Secretary of State’s letter to me, which included a new 16-bed hospital, unscheduled care services and out-patient services, including chemotherapy and X-rays.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is right about the community support in not only his constituency but North Durham, which the hospital also serves. If the moneys are in place, that is welcome news, but there seems to be confusion locally about where the site will be and whether there will be 16 beds. Does he have an update on those details?

Richard Holden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. My understanding is that there are still three sites under discussion, but it will be around Consett. I am pushing the Minister on whether there will be 16 beds, because that is what was in the Secretary of State’s letter to me, and I want to ensure that that is the case.

Kevan Jones: Those community beds are needed for respite and other things in the area, and the hon. Gentleman is right about the cancer treatment done at the trust, but the CCG wrote to me this week saying that there is not yet clarification about whether there will be 16 beds.

Richard Holden: We are both pushing the Minister on that exact point.
Crucially, I would like the Minister to confirm that Government funding from the hospital programme will cover the difference between moneys sourced so far from local trusts—the £17 million confirmed last year—and whatever will be needed for this facility. It is great to see capital investment delivering on the levelling-up agenda on which I was elected. It is not all about capital—it is also about investment in schools, so it was great to hear the investment announced last week in skills and training—but part of it is, because communities like mine feel that over decades, they have not been given a fair crack of the whip and have been left behind.
I would also like the Minister to confirm that this will not be done under any form of private finance initiative deal, which my constituents have mentioned. They are concerned that, over the last few years, and especially under the last Labour Government, hospitals have been left with essentially very large debts, which caused them problems in the longer term. That has afflicted hospitals and facilities across County Durham.
Finally, I want to highlight the great work done at Shotley Bridge and by all the great NHS staff across County Durham and Darlington, some of whom were seriously ill, and a couple of whom died from covid. There are a lot of local questions about covid at the moment. Could the Minister talk a bit about the work he is doing to ensure that none of the measures taken at either a local or national level—including those asked for by local authorities in our area—will be in place any longer than they need to be? We want to see our communities back up and running as quickly as possible and providing the healthcare services that people want across the board.

Edward Argar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing a debate on this important issue. His timeliness in doing so is, as ever, perfect, as was his impressive history lesson and his relating that history of the hospital to the present.
The future of Shotley Bridge Hospital is, as my hon. Friend said, an issue that this House has become familiar with in recent months, through his regularly raising it in the Chamber on behalf of his constituents and his local campaigning on it—something well attested to on his website and well reported in recent weeks in both the Chronicle and Consett Magazine. As he said, he kindly invited me to visit his constituency to see Shotley Bridge Hospital for myself. However, I cannot blame him for upgrading last month and securing a visit instead from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although I hope I might yet enjoy North West Durham and County Durham hospitality and a welcome if my invitation still stands.

Richard Holden: The invitation definitely still stands, and the Minister is welcome whenever he would like to visit.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having secured that re-invitation, I look forward to that. I would like to put on record, as he did in his speech, my thanks to all who work in Shotley Bridge Hospital and more broadly in the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust for the amazing work they have done for his constituents and more broadly during the pandemic, and indeed for the care that they all provide day in, day out, all year round, regardless of the public health context.
Shotley Bridge Hospital is, as my hon. Friend said, a key part of the local healthcare landscape in the services it provides, but he has effectively made the case that it has the potential to do even more. I know that the sustainability and transformation plan set out the long-term approach to the strategic delivery of health services in these areas, but the CCG and the trust itself have undertaken considerable work on this as well. As I say, the staff are doing an amazing job, but the current hospital faces challenges. In the last financial year—I am sure my hon. Friend will correct me if I get this wrong—it had total running costs of around £1.7 million and £570,000 annual maintenance costs simply to keep the buildings working. These annual costs are a challenge, but so too is the nature of the physical space, including its usage of the current site and the access to it.
The case for, and commitment to, the hospital is clear. As I understand it, there has already been a consultation on elements of this matter in spring 2019. I was therefore extremely pleased that my hon. Friend’s campaigning had paid off and that a new hospital for Shotley Bridge was included in the list relating to the £3.7 billion investment in 40 new hospitals to be built, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced late last week. This is a reflection of a Government delivering on their pledge to build 40 new hospitals, and it is a fantastic example of this Government delivering on their commitment to levelling up.
This new hospital for the people of North West Durham, and indeed more broadly, reflects the healthcare needs of the local population and the local context. As I understand it, the CCG and the trust are continuing to work out the details and consult further, and I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to work closely with them in that endeavour, as I believe he is doing. Let there be no doubt about what he has achieved with this announcement, less than a year after being elected and  after a decade of this matter barely being raised in this House. I make an honourable exception to that, because I know that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has continued to raise it, and that he has worked with my hon. Friend. However, I know that it is my hon. Friend’s passion, as the Member for North-West Durham, that has delivered this result.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on his efforts, but a lot of work has been done on this over many years, including by many councillors. I know that the hon. Gentleman mentioned councillors, but he excluded the Labour councillors and Durham County Council, who have been working with the CCG and others to deliver this. It is something that will benefit the entire area, and yes, I congratulate him, but the important thing is that a lot of this work was done before he even knew where Consett was.

Edward Argar: I suspect that my hon. Friend has long known where Consett is, and he has been campaigning hard since his election, but I shall take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention in the spirit in which it is meant. I have alluded to his work on this, which is only right, but he is right to point out, in relation to my earlier references to the work that had been done previously during the consultation by the CCG and others, that I should also recognise the work done by councillors and other local campaigners and, indeed, by local people in that context.
The new hospital for the people of North West Durham —and the broader region, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says—will be part of a model of care developed to reflect the healthcare needs of that local population. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, in working to understand those healthcare needs and working with others, as is his way, has secured agreement for the delivery and funding of one of his key local election pledges when he stood for this House in 2019. To answer some of his questions specifically, we will fund this new hospital, and I have no intention of that being through a PFI.
My hon. Friend has been clear, and I agree with him, that this new hospital will not only contain, as he has set out, an enhanced range of services, but, crucially, those in-patient beds that he has been so very clear about. As the trust and others work through—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Edward Argar: Mr Deputy Speaker, I should have seen that coming. As a former member of the Procedure Committee, I should have remembered it would be coming. However, I will pick up where I left off.
My hon. Friend’s commitment is clear, and I agree with him that those in-patient beds are absolutely crucial. I know, initially, there was some talk or some suggestion of no in-patient beds or of a small number. He has been very clear that the number needs to be 16, and I heed what he says.
I look forward to receiving the detailed business cases in the coming months and—presuming, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would expect, that they meet the standards we would expect for the spending of public money and robust project delivery—to approving them and securing their approval from the Treasury. I also look forward, subject to that consent being forthcoming, to seeing construction start in 2022-23, I hope, with a swift construction so that his constituents and those of the right hon. Member for North Durham can enjoy the facilities of a new hospital as swiftly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham mentioned one other point, which was about restrictions related to tackling the covid pandemic—and, indeed, their impact on the health service and the provision of normal health services—only being in place as long as they are necessary to protect public health. I entirely agree with him. None of us wishes to see them in place a day longer than they are necessary to achieve that primary purpose, but regrettably, they do remain necessary at the moment to ensure the safety of patients and others accessing those services.
The subject of this debate is the future of Shotley Bridge Hospital. Thanks to the staff at the hospital it has a bright future and thanks to the local people, local campaigners and their passion for this hospital it has a bright future, but thanks to my hon. Friend it has an incredibly bright future. He has secured that future—that brighter future—through his campaigning and his success in his campaign. His is a plan about which, if I recall correctly, according to a survey of local residents or local constituents he undertook, 92% of those responding agreed with the approach he is proposing.
This is a Government who deliver on our pledges, and my hon. Friend is a local MP who delivers on his pledges to his constituents. They are lucky to have him representing them in this place. He is a strong voice for them, and he has played a central role in delivering that brighter future for Shotley Bridge Hospital.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green)
  Chris Elmore


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
  Chris Elmore


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir William Cash (Stone)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West)
  Patrick Grady


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow)
  Chris Elmore


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford)
  Caroline Nokes


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East)
  Chris Elmore


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West)
  Dawn Butler


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd)
  Chris Elmore


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
  Patrick Grady


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover)
  Maria Caulfield


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk)
  Bim Afolami


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet)
  Caroline Nokes


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden)
  Steve Baker


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran)
  Patrick Grady


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West)
  Chris Elmore


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish)
  Chris Elmore


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East)
  Chris Elmore


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
  Patrick Grady


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham)
  Maria Caulfield


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich)
  Dehenna Davison


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East)
  Mohammad Yasin


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central)
  Chris Elmore


  Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North)
  Chris Elmore


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Jones (Newport West)
  Chris Elmore


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck)
  Kate Osborne


  Chris Law (Dundee West)
  Patrick Grady


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South)
  Lloyd Russell-Moyle


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
  Patrick Grady


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough)
  Chris Elmore


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)
  Zarah Sultana


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)
  Patrick Grady


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East)
  Patrick Grady


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk)
  Patrick Grady


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Menzies (Fylde)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North)
  Chris Elmore


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon)
  Rebecca Harris


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute)
  Patrick Grady


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton)
  Nadia Whittome


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
  Peter Aldous


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
  Rebecca Harris


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim Shannon (Strangford)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
  Chris Elmore


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alyn Smith (Stirling)
  Patrick Grady


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mel Stride (Central Devon)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth)
  Dawn Butler


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire)
  Patrick Grady


  Hywel Williams (Arfon)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley)
  Nadia Whittome


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire)
  Patrick Grady